Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Who's Greedy ? Romney gave 15% to charity; Obama 1%...

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 25, 2012, 11:47 a.m. EST by Galt01 (55)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

195 Comments

195 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by 1RAND (5) 2 years ago

You got to be kidding Romney makes more in 2 Days than I make in a year. 15% of that is nothing, considering the percent of Taxes I pay for the Income I earn compared to him which is alot less especially since I pay a social Security Tax on all my income and he pays only on the first $106,800 of his income. $21,600,000 - $106,800 = $21,503,200 exempt from Social Security Taxes and we wonder why the Social Security Trust is going broke, It because crooked politicians have so skewed the tax burden on the Middle Class that we can't possibly maintain it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/01/romney_income_calculator_how_much_does_mitt_make_how_long_would_it_take_him_to_earn_your_salary_.html

[-] 1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

what do what you do have to do with Romney? or anyone else for that matter. Another sucker falling for identity politics.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by humanprogress (55) 2 years ago

romney has a lot more to spare. after a certain amount, the rest of the money he has left is too much!

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

yes - and it is for you to decide what is too much. You know what - I think you have to much. Do you mind if I take it & spend it on my special interest group?

[-] 1 points by flip (5058) 2 years ago

225 million is too much - and yes i do mind if you spend it on your special interest group - next question?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Obama gave 14% in 2010.

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

show me the link

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

http://www.blackmediascoop.com/2011/04/18/how-much-did-obama-make-last-year/

there are dozens upon dozes of links I could have put up. If you weren't such a slave to Fucksnews, and had even two brain cells communicating with each other in your head, you could have found them too before posting your Idiocy here.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I, along with most Americans I think, would not believe anything written about Obama from either Fox News or Black Media Scoop. I think it is obvious to see how they are both biased.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I only put up one link to one source. His tax returns have been reported widely, and are in the public record. Bloomberg, The NY Times, the Washington post, and so on, have all reported on it.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Chicken scratch compared to Romney's charity. So why did he cut back in 2011 ? Is it that he'd rather be spending your money?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Chicken scratch? It's the same percentage, idiot. And he paid a HIGHER percent of his income in taxes too.

A to cutting back in 2011, his taxes haven't been released yet for 2011, so whatever you're saying is complete fabrication (aka LIES). You're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

Whether you deem it chicken scratch or not, it still shows you up to be a LIAR. 14% is NOT 1%. So you can go fuck yourself.

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

I don't care about the percentage - look at the dollar contribution.

What happened in 2011? 1% ?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

That is a ridiculous way to compare how charitable two people are.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

you are correct. We need to measure how generous Obama is with our money not his lol! Then he is very generous.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

The only greedy, entitled people in this country are the wealthy elite and the corporations that have bought our government and are controlling our economy.

Occupy Wall Street!!!!!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You stupid shit. Your OP is about percentages, not dollar amounts. That's the measure of "cheapness". How much of what you earned, not how much total. And Mittens had an income nearly 20 times that of Obama. If Obama had donated every penny he earned last year, It couldn't have matched 10% of Mitem's hoard.

Show me a link to ANY report about Obama's charitable giving in 2011. Since his tax return ISN'T FILED YET for 2011, you have NO credible source. You are a LYING SHIT.

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

hahaha! It must be a lie hahaha! You dont like what you are hearing lol! Go ahead - believe what you want. Youve already lost when you start with the profanity thats the tip off lol!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You lost when the abortion your mother tried failed. It only resulted in brain damage.

You have yet to provide a source.

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

hahahahaha! Even better hahaha! An original!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Post a link or accept that you are a liar.

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

I posted a link if you dispute it - you prove it. By the way - the original story was in USA Today - since I know you hate FOX and assume everything they report is a lie.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

None of that referred to 2011.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

so basically Obama gets a pass on charitable donations because he is fighting to redistribute other peoples earnings to you. Nice. Good luck.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Who said anything about redistributing anything. Being a community organizer is about helping people in a variety of ways. It could be starting a community garden, or getting pro-bono legal services fro clients, or finding medical programs for them, or finding school funding fro local schools, or creating a book drive for a local library.

But IF he helped them reclaim some of what the 1% redistributed to itself, GREAT!

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

I think you mean community intimidator extortionist.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I think you will say anything and write anything so ling as you can hold onto your ignorance, willfully.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

what about the money from his book 10 Million?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That came in 2009.

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

you are correct. So it doesn't matter that he only paid 1% on 1.2M income from 2000 - 2004. My Bad lol !

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Man, you can't read. His family's income was 250 THOUSAND dollars a year, combined with his wife's. And no, it doesn't bother me at all. He spent his time as a community organizer, helping people directly through his efforts ever day. He didn't inherit millions and make a vast fortune buying and selling companies and putting people out of work.

And nowhere does it say how much the Obamas gave to causes that weren't deductible. As their income grew, so did the percentage of it they gave to charities, deductible charities.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Where are you getting the 1% figure for 2011?

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

I am getting it from the story in the news. Are you doubting it's accuracy? Prove it is wrong.

[-] 1 points by jssk (170) from Naperville, IL 2 years ago

I read that you are an idiot. Are you doubting its accuracy? Prove it wrong.

[-] -1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15

That is the only link I can find that mentions Obama contributing 1% to charity. But it is not for 2011 but before he became the President.

Where is your source other then "in the news"? I believe you misheard because Obama has not yet filed his 2011 tax returns.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

FLAKESnews. 100% flakes, 100% of the time.

Feeling a little flakey?

Shut it off and seek out a dose of the truth.

I feel dirty just giving their web site a hit.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

It was less than 1% on income from 2000 - 2004 . 10,000 on 102M

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

But your post is that Obama only contributed 1% to charity in 2011. Where is your source for that claim?

[-] 1 points by jssk (170) from Naperville, IL 2 years ago

How much did Romney give when he was making what Obama is making?

[-] 1 points by jssk (170) from Naperville, IL 2 years ago

Whoever's making millions while paying 15% low tax and refusing to change the tax code to make it fair is greedy.

[-] 1 points by TimMcGraw (50) 2 years ago

Romney is gonna win the presidency. It'll be a no contest against Obama.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No he's not greedy. That is why he creates all of those jobs. He's generous. Why, since he left Bain Capital he has continued to pay less taxes, because of the "carried interest" loop hole just so he, like all of the other job creators, can keep creating those jobs. So, we should ignore Bain Capital. Look at all of the jobs Mittens has created since then. He created jobs in the Cayman Islands. He created jobs in the Switzerland. How many jobs was that in the Cayman's again? Help me with that. And then there were all of those that he created in Switzerland, why right here alone there must have been, how many? A thousand? a hundred? one? There must have been at least one? Possibly more. Didn't a limo pick him up at the airport in Zurich? Yeah, and then there was the bell boy that carried his bag with the cash he came to deposit to his room. And room service! How about that? So, you see. That's how job creation works. Twenty five million here, to be deposited, twenty five million there and just look at the jobs. Greed no, I call that generosity. You gotta admire that.

Wonder how many job creators like that it would take to create those twenty million jobs we need? Hmmmm?

[-] 1 points by OccupyLink (529) 2 years ago

Why are we even comparing politicians when it is the cruel and greedy banksters we should after.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

last job I had was for $10/hour

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Romney AND Newt!

[-] 1 points by ErnieB0T (12) 2 years ago

weeeee, I'm wearing romney's majic underwear, weeee

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

The system Romney supports requires his charity because it ultimately serves to benefit him and every other "philanthropist."

[-] 1 points by Nordic (390) 2 years ago

You're actually so stupid you'd post a link from Faux News here?

Wow.

I guess anybody can use a computer now.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

The amount people show on a tax return, regarding charity is just a f*cking show people..Especially if you are a politician!

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

Who's greedy? That's a good question..Maybe everyone...That is, if the zenith of existence is merely to exist..

It's a pretty silly question really, the real question is: Who's greedy enough to forsake the rest of humanity in order to make a personal profit from it?

Obama is a reptile for sure...Not the dinosaur that T-Rex Romney is though..

If one day we all decide that the money that Mitt Romney has is valueless then it will be...WE have then reshaped reality..Just as the current TPTB have done for the last 250 years.

Take a lesson on perception it's all just a magic trick, that you've been duped into believing is real...

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

who's forsaking the rest of humanity?

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 2 years ago

The people on top of this current pyramid scheme.. It is just an illusion of control, you know..

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Romny Cut thousands of jobs and made millions off it. To answere your dumb ass question Romny gets the nod.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

He created jobs too. So you think everyone is entitled to keep there job for as long as they live regardless of the companies profitability?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Do not be a scab all your life.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

hahahaha! Maybe you should try relying on yourself instead of the hiding among the mob. Too scared probably.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Just another back stabing scab in a long line of cheese eaters

[-] 1 points by TeaBasher2651 (0) from Biddeford, ME 2 years ago

FOX is so far to the rihgt, I love how they always find a way to blame things on obama. Stupid conservatives, they dont know a thing

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

so the story is a lie ? Prove it.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Mormon church mandates his giving. Romney gives to no poor.Mormon occult has plenty of ca$h..

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

simple church taxing organization

Mormons build temples and run missions

the government could build hospitals

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

so you are going to be the authority and decide what charity is worthy or not hahahaha!? typical.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Mormon church is not a charity but a Tax free corporation!

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

So you are going to decide what Churches are worthy or not? Go lobby congress then to have the law changed.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

You no just another corporate tax loop hole to screw the American Tax payer.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

nothing prevents you from donating to the Mormon church and receiving a tax write off.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

so you'd rather people give their money to the government sinkhole?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Charity is one facet of the mission of the 1% to control the rest.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

oh one more thing. Is government trying to control us? or are they the epitome of genuine benevolence?

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

hahahaha! you're really gone - wow!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Tell me why anyone in this country should have to survive on the whims of someone else's beneficence? There is plenty of wealth for all. You want liberty - charity doesn't bring liberty.

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Your post could have just as easily been made by a Conservative,that's how much I agree with you.

Excellent statement of real American values. Keep it up.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Funny. Humor is good, headlesscross.

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

No pun intended,you got the making of a great Conservative.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Nah. My charity stance can be twisted, as you have done, but you still don't want to share the profits. Right? You still don't want to value labor in a manner that would allow the workers of America to live decent lives without needing charity. Do you now?

Charity is a weapon of the oppressor. Unfettered Austrian capitalism is another.

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

You would be a bit presumptuous. Labor is already valued by the free market. Govt. imposition of regulations and "values" are what become job killers and business wreckers.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

So, I presumed correctly. I know you really believe in the free market. You think that is the way to go. I get that. But, you've never experienced an unregulated free-wheeling capitalist economy. No one has. The closest we've ever been to that is the Industrial Revolution. Think of Dickensian times.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Yes - and we are way far beyond that now. So how far do you want to go? Utopia? Dickens was a novelist by the way.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Hello, Galt01. I thought I was responding to headlesscross. I suppose you believe in the free market as well. Lovely. Do you understand the basic premise of capitalism, that the owners of the means of production, the capitalists, exploit capital and labor to create profit? It's not complicated. If you do, then you will understand that if we were to ever implement an unregulated capitalist economy most of us would be screwed. The folks who already own the capital would control everything. It would be like I said, Dickensian. Yes he was a novelist, but I like novels. The word is in the dictionary it means squalid and poverty-stricken.

Now, I have posed this: Ask your libertarian leaders if they would be willing to even out every American, in terms of wealth, before implementing this unregulated free-wheeling capitalism. Do you think they would? I don't. I think they'd laugh because they know that they already have more capital than most and they'd be at a huge advantage when the new system is implemented. They'll never give that advantage away. They are not stupid and they don't like to share.

So, they try to win people over with all the sexy talk about social issues, being free to drink unpasteurized milk, and carry your guns, do your drugs, legalize prostitution, privatize the schools, privatize the roads, etc. etc. Don't tread on me! And, it works. It all sounds good but really, it stinks.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

once again - redistributing wealth to even things out. Even if we did that - do you really think the equality would last very long? You presume all people have the same abilities, drive, intellect, desire etc. Within 5 years we'd be right back were we started. Please - equal opportunity - does not guarantee equal outcomes,

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

No. We would quickly be unequal again. I'd be on the losing end and so would most people like myself because I don't care about money. That is not the focus of my life. The capitalists would run me over. LOL!

My point is that the people who really understand Austrian economics know exactly what they are purporting. They would never ever agree to even everyone out because they fully understand the advantage they would have. Get this. If you don't have money libertarianism is not good for you. Stay away.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

who's wealth are you talking about? mine? the wealth I worked for? what makes you entitled to my wealth? How about I stop creating wealth once the higher tax bracket kicks in and I've secured enough wealth for me and my family? what if I feel like any extra effort is just going to the government for them to waste on subsidizing you. On the other hand, maybe I wouldn't mind working more and directing my extra wealth to causes I deem worthy. After all I earned the money didn't I ? Or is everyone who earns more than minimum wage just a crook?

[-] 9 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

I'm talking about all of the wealth that has been created on the backs of the American worker. Are you aware that one-half of all Americans earn less than $26,000 per year and that wages have declined over the past 10 years while profits are at an all time high? CEO's, who 30 years ago earned an average of 40 times the average worker's wage, today earn 343 times the average worker's wage. This is blatant corporate greed. The way labor is valued in this country needs to be changed. We need to make the economy work for the majority of people, not just the wealthy capitalists. If we had an economy that paid workers for the true value of their labor based on the profits it creates we would not need so much charity.

[-] 2 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

Germany finally seems to realize that an anti-militarist, pro-Labor agenda equals prosperity. I wish that I believed that Americans could realize this before it requires a global intervention.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Good point. We're working on it, right?

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 2 years ago

I like to think so. Sadly, I fear that we will have to experience scenes similar to those I viewed in "A Woman in Berlin" before it becomes true. I'll keep hoping and keep fighting nevertheless.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

Hear, hear!!!

[-] 0 points by 1169 (204) 2 years ago

thank you, well said beautifulworld!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9727) 2 years ago

I second that motion!

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

The 'true value' of the worker is determined not just by the profit it creates but also by a host of other factors. As long as the HR dept has not held a gun to a worker's head and forced him/her to work, I would say that the wages are a pretty good representation of the worker's true value.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

No. Not at all. First of all, jobs are scarce which means employees have little power in setting their wages. Second of all, I believe an economy should work for the people not vice versa. Labor can be valued differently based on the outcome of profits from that labor, not simply the steps involved in the tasks the employee performs. There are many ways to value labor. We need to address this issue in this country so that we don't continue on this path of having 1 in 7 on food stamps, 22% of our children in poverty, etc. etc.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Sure, jobs are scarce. And scarcity is another determinant of salary. Just as low skilled workers are aplenty and therefore they get less wages, similarly high skilled workers are fewer and they get high wages.If you are among the very few possessing a particular skills, companies would have to pay you more. I don't see anyone complaining then. It's all demand and supply.

Labor IS valued based on the money it generates (revenues not profits btw. Just because a company is making loss does not devalue it's work force). But that is not the only factor, that's all I am trying to say.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Smartcapitalist, I would like you to think out-of-the box. Picture a new society where workers are primary. Can you do it? It would be great. We'd all be doing well, even the 1%. They'd still be great. We would eliminate poverty, no more need for food stamps. What is so hard to understand about this? It is revolutionary, yes, but times are a changing. Our economic system has become an anachronism. It is not working!

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I am not sure what you mean by 'workers are primary'. If you want to form a collective (cooperative) where the company is run by the employees, you may still be able to put workers as primary; though even then different workers will have different contribution and there will always be the ones who resent and rise in protest at the alleged unfair treatment (like OWS). But even a co-operative has to put customer as primary if it needs to survive in the long run. Even in a LLC the organization would care for the benefit of workers as a whole and not for individual employees. Employees that dont perform will be booted out so that the other employees dont suffer.

For a corporation , increasing shareholder value is the most important goal. And to do that a company needs to hire the best people and keep them happy enough to deliver the best for their customers and thereby increase shareholder value. And that's what companies do. And people at the lower rung have always complained. I am sure the janitor at Google would not be too happy about his compensation. But Google engineers are happy.

If a company cares too much for employees at the expense of it's own financial health, it would in fact create more poverty because the company itself wont exist.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

You're getting somewhere. I don't think increasing shareholder value HAS to be the most important goal. The economy could work differently. It could value workers (the masses) over the capitalists (the wealthy). I'm not saying take all the wealth away from the capitalists, but we could certainly find a way to prevent poverty and allow all people to lead decent lives.

I really don't understand your last sentence. Take Apple, for example, they have earned so much profit that they now have more money in the bank than the U.S. Treasury. So, how would it really have harmed Apple to put a little more money into labor by, say, keeping some jobs in America, or by paying the Chinese workers a bit more. They surely wouldn't close down because of taking a little less profit, would they?

See this article in the NY Times about the shame that is Apple:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

With all due respect, I hardly matters what you think. what matters is what shareholders think. The society values work and not workers and it always will, always has.

As for apple and american jobs, you should read this http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all

It's is not possible to keep 'some' manufacturing jobs in US. It is an either or all game. You either have the whole ecosystem that helps manufacturing or you don't. And US as of now cannot do that. China will win. Just because Apple has money in the bank does not mean it should be giving it all away to charity

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

It hardly matters what you think, smartcapitalist because your thinking is way off base. Who do you think society is made up of? Not shareholders, my friend, it is made up of people, all people.

You will never open your mind. You didn't even answer my question. Of course, Apple would not go out of business had it done the moral thing and paid the Chinese workers enough money to live decently.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Agreed jobs are scare. Therefore salaries for those jobs will be low. If the skilled workers were scarce compared to jobs, the salaries would be high. There is a upside and a downside.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Gee. We are humans. The economy is a thing. We can make the economy work for the benefit of all people.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Then the said human can chose to quit the job. Get a better one. Who's stopping?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Jobs are scarce. That's what's stopping him.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

The correct word is ethics not morals. But the question is what is moral? Is it immoral for me to charge my clients 15% of all profits (and of course the 2% management fees)? Is 10% moral? Is 5% moral? Similarly, is it moral for my clients to just pay me 5% of profits only? why not 20% or even 50%? Would that be moral?

If I buy a share at $10 and sell it to a client for $100, is that immoral? The client is willing to pay and to him the share is worth $100 but it's worth $10 to the guy who sold it.

Also different people have different standards of morality. Everyone in Apple would have a different standard. Laws have a single standard that everyone accepts, morals don't. In fact, for a muslim trader charging of interest itself is immoral. Should he then wage a holy war against the trading floor?

Morals matter but enforcing them is tough and there is no common standard for morals. The CEO of Apple may think they should pay more, the CFO may think otherwise, the sales guy something else and so on. Not just that arguing on morals is futile. When you attack a person's morals, you will never convince him/her.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

It is immoral for any human to have to work at a job that cannot sustain him.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Like i said doesnt matter what you and I think. Shareholders are the people who put money and what they want profits. If they had to do charity they would donate to UNICEF.

And yes I have heard this often from Occutards that people who disagree with them haven't opened their minds. Such level of self worth, and you call us in Wall Street arrogant.

The manufacturing units are not run by Apple and neither is Apple the sole customer of those manufacturing companies, so they cannot dictate remuneration policies even if they wanted to. Besides, the chinese workers are being paid what needs to be paid to keep them on the job. Those workers can always quit. If they aren't then their salaries are what they should be. Sure they may not be happy about it (even I would be happier if I got 10 times the bonus that I actually did) but you cant make everyone happy

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Don't you think morals matter in business? I saw you post somewhere else recently that what businesses do are legal, not moral. Don't morals supercede what is legal? Are we not human beings first and foremost?

[+] -5 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

wealth has not been created on the backs of the American worker. No one owes you a living. Get over it. If you want to earn more money make yourself worth more. Everything is about we- we- we- what about you? What do you bring to the table?

[-] 4 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Everything is not about you you you. There are people in this world, unlike you, who care about others and care about the well being of our society. And think we should look out for eachothers welfare and well being for the good of society as a whole. Everyone should be afforded good opportunities for jobs and prosperity. And when there has been 30 years of middle class wage stagnation and an enormous amount of wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few people, this is harmful to society. The people who hold such enormous amounts of wealth didn't necessarily get there because they are oh so great. They had alot of help from favorable government policies that they bought and paid for with their corruption of government. So there! Mr.Oh so Mean and Selfish man person!

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

That's the misconception you leftists have about Conservatives. We believe it is better to teach a man to fish, you believe in just giving a man my fish. You keep talking about the concentration of wealth in the 1%. Obama talks about taxing millionaires & billionaires, then when you see the actual policy - he wants to raise taxes on people earning 200K and up. Why doesn't he use that figure more often in his speeches?

[-] 4 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You misunderstand my point completely. It wouldn't even be necessary to give a man a fish, support families with government assistance, if there were good job opportunities available at all levels of society so that people could provide for themselves. Wouldn't that be preferable? The government has a role in providing an economic foundation and environment so that good opportunities are available.

President Obama's plan that he discussed last night is based on the Buffet rule. It's a proposal, a starting point. The figure is $250k, not $200k. And whether he says $250k now and what the final figure might end up being are two entirely different things. I have little doubt that the figure will go up. It's called leaving room for negotiation with a dysfunctional Congress, and House controlled by Republicans who behave as if they would fight to their very death before raising taxes at all, despite overwhelming 73% support for tax increases on the wealthy, who recognize the tax structure is fundamentally unfair and unhealthy for society to continue the flow of wealth to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

And since you like to talk about Conservatives v Liberals so much, the Conservatives conveniently forget that President Reagan even raised taxes on the wealthy and would probably do it again today, based on his ideas and principles when he as President. Yet Conservatives today seem to think this will somehow be the end of the very world as we know it!

Going to war, sending thousands of people to sacrifice their lives in questionable and costly wars is absolutely fine with most Conservatives. But ask the wealthiest Conservartives to sacrifice a little of their wealth to pay a little bit higher taxes for the good of our country, thats where they draw the line. Sacrificing someone elses lives is ok. Sacrificing a little bit of their own money is a more horrible fate than death! This kind of thinking is deplorable and sickening.

Somehow, everyone managed to get along just fine after President Reagan raised tax rates on the wealthy. The world didn't stop turning and spin off its axis. And the wealthy were still wealthy. Nobody is asking wealthy Conservatives to risk their lives for their country. It's just money.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

250K for families 200K for an individual. Anyway - how does that creat jobs? When Reagan left office the top rate was 28%. Down from 70% when he started. If it's just money why are you so obsessed with it? Answer - because it's not yours and you want some of it.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

You like living in a country where 22% of children live in poverty. That's where we differ. I don't. I'd prefer those kids parents had jobs that paid a living wage. I think our nation has enough wealth to go around. The only greedy, entitled people in this country are the corporations and the wealthy who know damn well they control our government and our economy.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Thank you for kicking that rabid dog

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

LOL! I had some help from friends too.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

medicare, food stamps. the phone company provides free cell phone. you seem into buy the obama class ( economic warfare) garbage. my gas company provides energy to the poor, for free.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Re-read this entire thread. You missed the point.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

GOOD. Or would you prefer that people and their children starve and freeze to death, because you prefer that billionaires keep every penny of the money they inherited or got from dividends?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

I don't think I want to hear his answer.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It probably has to do with eugenics.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

LOL! That's worse than what I was thinking.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

What were your thinking? Soylent Green, or A Modest Proposal?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Just a bunch of libertarian b.s., I guess. You are too funny.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thanks, I try.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

they don't keep every penny. No one starves to death in this country , haven't you heard, we have food stamps and welfare and medicaid

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You object to food stamps and (non existent) welfare,and Medicaid. It seems you would rather have people starve than add one penny more in taxes to the wealthy.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

i didn't object to food stamps. where do you get that from? people do not starve to death in the USA. higher taxes on what you consider to be the "rich" and you still can't run the govt for more than 1 month. Spending is the problem.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Spending on what? Clearly you refer to social spending, which you have disparaged time and again.

And NEWS FLASH: People are starving in this country right now. People are homeless right now. 45,000 people die every year simply from lack of access to health care. In some parts of the country, due to poverty alone, there is a higher rate of infant mortality than in Calcutta.

Wake up.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

there are no people starving in the usa. i repeat,........there are food stamps, welfare , free clinics, section 8 housing ( the govt pays the rent). i can't force people to avail themselves of these things.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I repeat, there IS starvation in America today. Food stamps are meagre. Many communities, food stamps or not, have little access to fresh food. Free clinics do NOT exist everywhere. Welfare was ended during the Clinton administration, and section 8 housing is so scarce there are are over a million homeless FAMILiES in the country. And the punitive requirement to get onto most of these programs block millions from being ABLE to avail themselves.

If you believe otherwise, you must be living in a parallel universe. Life is grim for millions of your fellow citizens here, without a way out.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

welfare, food stamps, free shelters, foodstamps, freeclinics, section 8 housing..............a person has to make an effort to apply.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are a moron completely out of touch with reality. In New York alone, the waiting list for Section 8 housing is - as a minimum - over two years. In the meantime, people are on the streets. That's IF they qualify. And there is LESS THAN HALF section 8 housing than there are qualified applicants. Free clinics are incredibly scarce, (and non-existent for single adults in New Jersey) and most of the few around don't provide free labs or free medicine. So you can get diagnosed - maybe - and then can't get the meds to make you better. In most urban areas there are not enough beds in the shelters ti house half the need. A single person must take in less that $10,000 a year to qualify for TANF, and in the meantime they lose their homes, since rent plus food plus transportation plus laundry (let alone clothes, which is out of the question) costs much more than that in most parts of the country. And without an address, one cannot qualify for welfare. In New York, if one becomes disabled, your application is AUTOMATICALLY denied, not once, but the first THREE TIMES you apply. Disabled people must find a way to appeal, with expensive lawyers they can't afford, three times before they are approved. The process typically takes a YEAR. And that's only if they find money for a lawyer while not working and ill. And thelast Mayor shut down the Disablility offices in every borough except the Bronx, so if you lived in Brooklyn or Queens you would have to travel at least an hour to get there. If you lived on Staten Island, at least two hours or more each way. While Ill. And for nothing. For a year.

You have NO idea what you're talking about. You have NEVER been CLOSE to being in that position or even knowing people who were. I hope, I really hope, that some day you lose everything, not to make you suffer, but to make you human. As of now you are not part of the species.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

you're living on another planet.No one is homless unless they want to be.section 8 housing is not scarce. clinton did not end welfare , he reformed it.food stamps meager? 48 millon people are on food stamps. there is NO starvation in this country.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No one is homelless unless they want to be? HAHAHAHAHA

Really, too funny.

Come to New York, Chicago, DC. Talk to the families on the street. Ask them aout how they "chose" living there.

ROTF... Really.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

1) the number one factor for winding up in poverty is being in a single parent household.

2) we already provide plenty of public housing, food stamps & medicaid.

Time for some personal reponsibility.

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

That makes no sense. As if all single parent households are poverty stricken? What distinguishes a poverty stricken single parent household from a non-poverty stricken single parent household?

You think the poverty level is so high because of divorce alone? I think there must be a little more to it than that.

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

look it up - most common factor of poverty - single parent household. It doesn't have to be from a divorce - some women have children without ever considering marriage. Mostly teenage mothers.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Theres a lot more to poverty than single parent households, is the point.

There is a severe shortage of living-wage jobs which means that many poor adults must work two, three, or four jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute, poor working adults spend more hours working each week than their wealthier counterparts. So yes, when there is lack of job opportunities for people to properly provide for their families basic necessities, yes, the government needs to provide public housing support, and other support service like you said. Its just not so simple as you say that it is due to single parent households. There are lots of struggling single and double parent households that have seen their wages stagnate for 30 years while more and more wealth flows and is conentrated at the top.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

THe # one factor for winding up in poverty is being born into poverty.

The US lags behind most of the developed world in intergenerational economic mobility. Maybe that was too many syllables for you, so I'll translate: Over here, if you're born poor, you stay poor. And we have fewer ways ways to help the poor get less poor than any other 1st world country in the world.

We provide a FRACTION of what is needed in terms of housing, food stamps, and especially medicaid. no single adult is even eligible for medicaid, and won't be until 2014, when the health care bill kicks in.

I would like to see more personal responsibility on the part of the bankers WHO DESTROYED THE ECONOMY AND THREW TENS OF MILLIONS OUT OF WORK. Currently there is one job available for EVERY FOUR APPLICANTS. Grace us with your pontifications about personal responsibility when there are NO JOBS.

Asshole.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

yea - and the number one reason your are born poor is you are born into a single parent household. Usually to a teenage mother.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The number one reason to be born poor is to be born into a poor family. The number one reason for staying poor is being born poor. If a single mother is from a wealthy family, you are likely to remain wealthy throughout your life. the converse is also true.

The US lags behind most of the developed world in intergenerational economic mobility.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

so the moral of the story is?

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

We need FAR more government spending on social programs. We need FAR more government spending on job creation. We need far less subsidies for oil companies. We need to impose heavy tariffs on American companies that ship jobs overseas (or some other punitive measures). We need more and better regulation and funding of regulators to keep the greed inherent in capitalism in check. We need a truly progressive tax code with high marginal rates. We need to end local control and funding of education and nationalize it. We need to eliminate laws that inhibit labor unions. We need a living wage law passed. We need to get money out of politics. We need real democracy and a genuinely mixed economy. And we need to shoot every member of CATO (or at least deport them to Somalia).

It's a moral you don't like, I'm sure.

[-] 1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

hahaha - just like the soviet union - hey - why not centrally plan everything.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

All of Europe is not anything like Sweden of Norway, and that's precisely what I just described. The Soviet Union was not a democracy, which is what I described. The USA is not a real democracy right now, either, since money buys legislation and any tax break or subsidy the 1% ask for.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

and they are a FAR different country altogether.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Concerning your use of Sweden as an example:

"The response of the government was to cut spending and institute a multitude of reforms to improve Sweden's competitiveness, among them reducing the welfare state and privatising public services and goods."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

It could afford to do that after decades of insuring the welfare of its citizens through major government programs. Even after the cutbacks they are far (FAR) ahead of us in terms of their social safety net, living wage standards, tight regulations on businesses that protect workers and insure competitiveness, etc. They are far FAR more successful than we are in every measure of their citizen's lives. And they accomplish it all with a mixed economy.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Just like the Soviets - shoot anyone who opposes your ideas lol! typical Communist response.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Personally, I thought it rather an amusing suggestion. But CATO would surely be far better off in Somalia: it is the perfect example of the Libertarian state.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Time for our economy to start giving some opportunity.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

the constitution ensures equal opportunity , NOT equal outcome

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

If you really believe there is equal opportunity in this country, you are psychotic.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

if you think there isn't you're the one with mental problems. there is equal opportunity , provided you qualify for the job you're going for , there are no 6 foot 230lb jockeys and there are no 5 foot 125 lb tackles in football. There is NO guaranteed outcome.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Really? Great, well funded public schools in poor neighborhoods? Equal access to quality health care for children, rich and poor, which effects their development? Equal access to nutrition and fresh produce, which effects brain development?

The answer is NONE OF THE ABOVE. THere is not a single factor relating to equal opportunity that is met in the USA.

Keep lining in your fantasyland. That's OK. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

i was right you have no friends , just fellow travelers.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

don't have any friends , do you.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Lots, actually.

And they all hate republitartds and and libertardians because they hate mendacity and delusion.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

when you're confronted with truth your potty mouth engages.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

When I'm confronted by willful stupidity and lies, I start cursing at the lying idiot who spouted them.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

the schools are well funded, waste is the problem. No MD can turn away a sick person, that's the law. all types a food are available to everyone. if you need help there are food stamps, medicaid and wefare. there are free clinics.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are so full of shit a Roto Rooter couldn't get it out. Keep living on your fantasy. It's OK . Being an ostrich is what you believe is good policy.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

In the preamble of the constitution it states that the government should provide for the general welfare of the citizens. I take that to mean all citizens. No where in the constitution does it say we should have a capitalist economy that supports the very wealthy and corporations while oppressing the rest.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 2 years ago

provide for the general welfare does not mean "welfare", i.e. govt handouts, 99 weeks of unemployment, " free " breakfast , lunch and dinner in schools. What will the kids do in the summer when the schools are closed? will all the schools stay open at taxpayer expense? will the teachers aske for more money? ( more taxes to pay them causing property taxes to go up to pay for that.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20500) 2 years ago

Right. I agree. How about a fair economic system where none of those "entitlements" are necessary. How about valuing labor in a way that allows all Americans to live decently. And, how about a government that is not bought, paid for and controlled by the wealthy elite and corporations.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

How does that happen?

[-] 2 points by 1169 (204) 2 years ago

spead the wealth, you know you call it trickle down economics, trickle it down!

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

LOL

"Reagan's "trickle down" economics have made 50 million Americans "piss poor"...

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 2 years ago

LOL

Republicans are such douche bags.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

1.) Besides being a backwards look at it. Prove it.

2.) If this was true, why are numbers going up in all of them?

Yes, it's time for WallStreet to take some responsibility, on this we agree.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Yey - you can believe whatever you want to believe. Be my guest.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26706) 2 years ago

You offer no truth?

Just deflection?

You're the one who needs belief.

I know.

[-] 1 points by flip (5058) 2 years ago

stop with the nonsense - go ahead and quit your job - nobody can take your place? sure after you make 250k and they tax you at a higher rate just stop working. as to the charity thing that money should be taxed and democratically directed by the gov't instead of by you - how many roads or schools have you built? and no - you don't really earn your $4,000,000 - not when the garbage man in my town makes 35k - he is more important than you and works harder!

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

charity is run by multi millionaires, show me one poor person that was helped by a "charity" in fact, people cannot donate to poor people, because they will be penalized in the form of a "gift tax". Our gov, and the evil powers that be have closed that gap also.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

Gift tax applies if you give more then $13,000 to a relative in one year.

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Salvation Army, United Way, Red Cross, Christian Children Fund, Catholic Charities, Habitat for Humanity etc. Donating to these organizations give you a tax deduction not a gift tax. I suggest you get a new accountant lol!

[-] 3 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

ur missing the point, look at the form 990 of these charities, i was just at st. judes hospital reading their form 990 and saw they paid 30 execs about $236,000,000 in salary, while only paying $15k in in patient care. heres the proof of this one. (u have to read 3/4 down to find the pay but its there) http://www.stjude.org/SJFile/990form-stjude-fy10.pdf Part way thru you will see one poor girl who got $30k but with a 1099 so she can get in trouble with the government in self pay taxes, leaving her not even enough to live on. ) I saw over 20 execs making over a milliion dollars a year in salary. Fact is form 990s prove that charities host some of the best paying jobs on earth. The salvation army pays their ceo 550k annually while paying $7.50 an hour to the poor bell giver. ARUP ceo made 1.5 million last year, from free blood donated, but then charge money to people who need it. Where do you think the money goes? here in my area, a man exposed the boyscouts of america president making over $630k a year, and this is why the boyscouts dont have enough money for their program, he got released from the church as a boy scout leader for telling the truth.

[-] 1 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

the patients receive free care right?

How much should the executives earn in running St. Jude's Hospital?

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

so find a charity you like - you think the government wastes less money hahaha! why dont you start your own charity & show us how it's done. Too much hot air by OWS. Do something productive instead of just criticizing everyone else

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Biden gave a whopping 369 dollars. What a great guy.

[-] 1 points by jssk (170) from Naperville, IL 2 years ago

And he filed it in his tax return?

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Seek and ye shall find.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Greedy? OMG. I too saw how much he gave to charity. Much did any OWS on here give?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I'm not allowed to watch sources that hack people's emails or tap their phones without a warrant thereby violating our Constitution. Do you have a reputable source?

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Forgive me - how is that relevant to this post?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Questioning the validity of sources cited is relevant on any thread, A is A except when it isn't.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

so you think it's a lie. Typical. something you dont want to hear - must be a like lol!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Some unreliable sources sometimes say things that are true, but sensible people wouldn't accept their statement that it is raining without a second source that is reliable. I don't think it is a lie. I think it is a statement from a liar without a corroborating source. I don't waste time reading or listening to sources that I would have to chase another source before I consider it.

Do we need to look further for evidence of the character of Mr. Romney? His positions on the issues that matter to me? He has totally agreed with me on each of them, at various times,....and with my adversaries. At least he can't be bought, by me.

But if you want a guy who will (fundamentally) disagree with you consistently, year after year, I know where you get one for only $25,000 per month. Or, I would do it myself, briefly but much cheaper. I like the comment below. I lived in Bountiful, Utah for a while. Well, it wasn't living, really.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

so you think it's a lie you dont know it's a lie & you are too lazy to find out the truth to refute this claim.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

It is a question of priorities really. I am more concerned about how he treated his Irish Setter. Putting a wet dog that is sick in a roof rack (he said it was air tight, which would have been even worse, but that isn't true either, of course) and driving for hours isn't greed. But it is cruel, which is worse.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

IT's relevant in that Romney does not meet the criteria you claim.The Mormon church is not a charity anymore than the taliban is!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You are exactly correct. It is not.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

The Mormon group does tend to conduct themselves like a corporation.I guess the mission time is a good apprentiship. When they get out they will be ready to fire people.I think that perhaps mittens learned a lot when he did his Mission in Paris.Other Americans serving in the war and he eating cheese.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

More like the KGB than a corporation, actually, because of the objective.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Who is mittens and what's this about cheese?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Back on topic you mean mitt homey has America's most distinguished cheese eating award?