Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

The 2012 Bilderberg Conference

bilderberg bilderberg group bilderberg meeting bilderberg 2012 bilderberg conference

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#61    preacherman76

preacherman76

    Humble Servent

  • Member
  • 10,841 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted 04 June 2012 - 01:05 AM

View PostStellar, on 04 June 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Preacher... Did they really say that, or did they say that they wish Ron Paul were dead? There's a difference, you know...

From what I understand they said that they would like to put Ron Paul and his supporters on planes with muslim terrorist flying the planes.

Some things are true, even if you dont believe them.

#62    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,855 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 04 June 2012 - 01:57 AM

Quote

From what I understand they said that they would like to put Ron Paul and his supporters on planes with muslim terrorist flying the planes.


From what I heard, they just said they wish he were on a plane with muslim terrorists.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#63    Left-Field

Left-Field

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2009

Posted 04 June 2012 - 05:31 PM

View PostRafterman, on 03 June 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Do you have any evidence that these references to a new world order are in any way similar to what is generally meant when you and others talk about a New World Order?

At the very basic level of it, my understanding of a New World Order is discussion of having a one world government, with all countries being governed by the same rules with the use of only one currency.

I believe there are some references that can be found that acknowledges this is what people who attend, or back, Bilderberg mean in regards to a New World Order, but I'd have to search for them.

View PostRafterman, on 03 June 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Because in my mind, there is a new world order and much of the turmoil of the past 20 years has been the world trying to figure it out.

It's odd that you would doubt my statement of Bilderberg acknowledging they discuss a New World Order, and then upon me providing the source you suddenly acknowledge that you, in fact, believe there has been work to implement a New World Order going on for the past 20 years.

I happen to agree with you on that by the way.

The thing is, most people aren't aware of this, nor do they understand it. That's why I find it odd that the term "New World Order" has gradually crept into some discussions without ever truly being acknowledged by the government as to what they desire to accomplish with a New World Order or why they feel things would be better that way.

I feel they want to condition people into having heard it so often that they no longer question what the heck it is by the time it comes fully about.


#64    Left-Field

Left-Field

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2009

Posted 04 June 2012 - 05:56 PM

View PostRafterman, on 03 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

No, there isn't any sourced information. There is simply speculation and conjecture. That's all it is

Paul Bonacci telling his story of what he witnessed and experienced at Bohemian Grove is sourced information. You simply choose not to acknowledge it. You also fail to offer any explanation as to how he so accurately described the scene within Bohemian Grove.

But, this thread isn't about Bohemian Grove, so unless you actually are willing to discuss it in that thread (and yes, I would like to know how you feel Bonacci so accurately described the inner surroundings of Bohemian Grove other than having been there for the reasons he tells us of) I suppose it should be dropped here.

View PostRafterman, on 03 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

And no, I do not believe that the likes of Jimmy Buffet, David Rockefeller, and Henry Kissinger gang bang little boys.

Well, I've never heard of Buffet, Rockefeller, or Kissinger being accused of molesting children (or "gang-banging" them if you prefer). George H.W. Bush and Barney Frank, among many others, on the other hand have been accused of doing such things by more than one child.

Your bias, however, wouldn't allow you to even consider such claims let alone come to a conclusion that they are.

View PostRafterman, on 03 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

And if Ron Paul, Neil Young, Eddie Vedder, Alex Jones, David Icke, and Julian Assange showed up at a conference, I'd definitely want to be there for nothing else but the comedic value.  Maybe Assange could secretly tape Eddie and Neil singing about reptilians with Icke.

You are quite a humorous fellow, Rafterman. Sadly, many of your statements simply show that you don't take things seriously that should be taken seriously.

If the people I named above, along with a 100-plus others of like-minded individuals from all over the world in influential positions (do I really need to make a list of 100-plus for you to get the proper understanding of what I'm saying?) gathered on a yearly basis to discuss ways of significicantly changing how the government operates, how to bring an end to war, and new ways of creating energy (among a host of other issues) I guarantee you the people currently in power would find no comedic value in this.

As I mentioned, it would even be a realistic possibility that they'd be declared traitors and / or terrorists.

When the Bilderberg Group gathers to do the same thing, however, were supposed to see nothing wrong with it.

View PostRafterman, on 03 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

By the way, since you're so convinced about the Bohemian Grove gang bangers, how do you feel about Assange's sex charges?

I haven't looked into them. To the best of my knowledge, however, Julian Assange hasn't been connected to a government cover-up involving a child prostitution sex ring.

View PostRafterman, on 03 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Has Ron Paul ever participated in any secret meetings? Do you get agitated about them?

That I'm aware of? No, he hasn't.

Would I be bothered if he had? Well, yes, if he were gathered in secretive meetings with 100-plus members of some of the most powerful and influential people from around the world I would be telling you that it is as wrong as what the Bilderberg group does.

View PostRafterman, on 03 June 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

BTW, lots of stories in the mainstream media this weekend about Bilderberg.

You keep making that statement and yet you haven't offered even one source that actually gives any type of report on what was discussed at the Bilderberg Conference and what was said within those discussions.

Instead, you read something like what was posted in this thread and declare it is mainstream coverage of the Bilderberg Conference. Read this post if you care to learn why such articles are not actual coverage of the Bilderberg Conference itself.

If you can link me to any maninstream coverage that actually informs me of what is discussed at Bilderberg and what views the people who attend hold regarding these topics of discussion I'd be very much interested in seeing them.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 04 June 2012 - 06:05 PM.


#65    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Unsuitable for large vehicles

  • Member
  • 24,831 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 07:42 PM

View PostAngel Left Wing, on 04 June 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:


At the very basic level of it, my understanding of a New World Order is discussion of having a one world government, with all countries being governed by the same rules with the use of only one currency.
To be quite honest, I'd often thought that'd be quite a good system. For a start, it would seem to remove at a stroke the problem of one country going to war with another, wouldn't it, if they all have the same political system.
And would there still be the inequality of the "developing" nations owing extraordinary amounts to the "Developed" world that there is now, and tinpot dictators doing what they liked while the Civilised world has meetings to Discuss it very firmly, and then does nothing because they can't agree. The Pax Romana, which is probably the nearest historical precedent to this hypothetical One World Government, on the whole, seemed to be reasonably effective; it was certainly one of the longer lasting empires.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#66    Left-Field

Left-Field

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2009

Posted 04 June 2012 - 08:42 PM

View Post747400, on 04 June 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

To be quite honest, I'd often thought that'd be quite a good system. For a start, it would seem to remove at a stroke the problem of one country going to war with another, wouldn't it, if they all have the same political system...

I may go into it more later, but a One World Government would give far too much control to the powers that be than they all ready have. We'd be totally handing over our freedoms to the government.

To be honest with you, I think it's a frightening thought to know that some people would be naive and foolish enough to back such a proposal.

Whenever there is talk about a conspiracy of the "Illuminati" wanting to control the world, the large majority of people laugh at it. Yet, the same people who scoff and laugh at that conspiracy theory then come forward and say "Ya know, I think a One World Government might be a really good idea."

Well guess what, once that happens, the world has been taken over. The "Illuminatti" will control the world at that point should it ever come to pass.

People in power (and people in general) are far too evil to think a One World Government would be some form of utopia for all of us to live in. History proves this.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 04 June 2012 - 08:46 PM.


#67    Viral

Viral

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Joined:10 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tiber Island

  • Nothing is true
    Everything is permitted

Posted 05 June 2012 - 09:29 AM

I watched the videos on the first few pages and was less than impressed. These 'reporters' shove cameras in the faces of alleged members and ask them a bunch of conspiracy crap that they've most likely been warned of and then when they choose to decline a comment it somehow affirms your belief of a evil, soulless organisation? The anger in most videos also seems to be after they've been stalked by these mad-men and to be honest, I'd be pretty pissed too. I fail to see how the videos that 'wearechange.org' pump out are to be taken any more seriously than Glenn Beck and his type.

Posted Image


#68    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,933 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 05 June 2012 - 03:14 PM

In notice that GOOGLE CEO is in attendance this year... easy, just switch to Firefox, if it is done in the millions then he will have some explaining to do


#69    Left-Field

Left-Field

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2009

Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:13 PM

View PostViral, on 05 June 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

I watched the videos on the first few pages and was less than impressed. These 'reporters' shove cameras in the faces of alleged members and ask them a bunch of conspiracy crap that they've most likely been warned of and then when they choose to decline a comment it somehow affirms your belief of a evil, soulless organisation? The anger in most videos also seems to be after they've been stalked by these mad-men and to be honest, I'd be pretty pissed too. I fail to see how the videos that 'wearechange.org' pump out are to be taken any more seriously than Glenn Beck and his type.

You're entitled to give your own take on the videos, but I find it to be a pretty innacurate one.

The WeOurChange.org people do not behave like "mad-men," nor do they approach the people they question in any way that goes against what the "established" media does when they actually attempt to report on an issue.

Lou Dobbs had absolutely no problem with the way the WeOurChange.org members approached him. He was polite, and even though he let it be known he didn't care to get too deeply into a discussion about Bilderberg, the reporters were appreciative of the fact that he didn't play dumb and acknowldged the fact that the Bilderberg Group exists.

The video with Lawrence O'Donnel is done without any of the claims you make above occurring. And most interesting about that video is that O'Donnel claims he knows absolutely nothing about the Bilderberg Group despite the fact he is a member of the mainstream media and people are here stating how the mainstream media "covers" the event and that the event itself is well known.

The video with Paula Zahn is also done very politely despite that fact that she too claims to have no idea what the Bilderberg Group is. This stands in total contrast to claims others have made that the mainstream media covers the event. They clearly can't cover it if they have no idea what it is. And if they truly have no idea what it is, then that only lends support to those of us stating the Bilderberg Group and the annual conference they hold is done secretively and with as little media attention as possible.

If you want me to go through each one of the videos individually I will, but the three I note above clearly show a behaviour that does not fall in line with your description of the WeOurChange.org members behaving like "mad-men."

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 05 June 2012 - 04:20 PM.


#70    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,597 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:34 PM

View PostViral, on 05 June 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

I watched the videos on the first few pages and was less than impressed. These 'reporters' shove cameras in the faces of alleged members and ask them a bunch of conspiracy crap that they've most likely been warned of and then when they choose to decline a comment it somehow affirms your belief of a evil, soulless organisation? The anger in most videos also seems to be after they've been stalked by these mad-men and to be honest, I'd be pretty pissed too. I fail to see how the videos that 'wearechange.org' pump out are to be taken any more seriously than Glenn Beck and his type.
All reperters get treated like **** when they ask "hard" questions to politicians or CEOs

Labor journalist Mike Elk on Thursday attended a Capitol Hill conference where he performed the unspeakable act of behaving like a journalist.  During the Q&A portion of a panel discussion, Elk rose to ask a question of Honeywell CEO David Cote, but as Congressional staffers nearby realized that his question wasn't a soft-ball about how a young entrepreneur might climb to the heights of corporate America, but a serious question regarding "labor practices and the recent release of radioactive UF6 gas" at a Honeywell uranium facility in Metropolis, Illinois," the microphone was ripped from Elk's hands and his questioning cut off.

http://www.commondre...er/2012/06/01-4

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton

#71    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 05 June 2012 - 04:35 PM

View Post747400, on 04 June 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

To be quite honest, I'd often thought that'd be quite a good system. For a start, it would seem to remove at a stroke the problem of one country going to war with another, wouldn't it, if they all have the same political system.
And would there still be the inequality of the "developing" nations owing extraordinary amounts to the "Developed" world that there is now, and tinpot dictators doing what they liked while the Civilised world has meetings to Discuss it very firmly, and then does nothing because they can't agree. The Pax Romana, which is probably the nearest historical precedent to this hypothetical One World Government, on the whole, seemed to be reasonably effective; it was certainly one of the longer lasting empires.

Never got why a world government had to be automatically evil and kill billions for no reason. It would just be another layer of government. I wonder if the idea of federal governments were toyed with if those at the state level wailed about how they were all going to be killed off.

Also not sure why all rich people need to be automatically evil. Sure a lot of them are b******* but I find it hard to believe that every single person involved with this conference is a soul-less monster.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#72    Left-Field

Left-Field

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2009

Posted 05 June 2012 - 05:25 PM

View PostCorp, on 05 June 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Never got why a world government had to be automatically evil and kill billions for no reason. It would just be another layer of government. I wonder if the idea of federal governments were toyed with if those at the state level wailed about how they were all going to be killed off.

It wouldn't be "just another level" of government. It would be the level of government. You would have an elite conglomerate of people ruling over every other person in the world. We would be handing over every last aspect of our freedom.

History shows us how evil governments can be. A One World Government would not change this. People in power will abuse that power. This is a fact and will always be a fact throughout the end of time.

As I stated earlier, people scoff and laugh at the idea of an "Illuminati" controlling the world, yet these same people fail to realize how that is exactly what would occur upon the implementation of a One World Government. How people can fail to understand this boggles the mind.

People who think a One World Government would be a good thing are foolish, naive, and most likely uneducated about the history of the world. If it ever happens, it wouldn't take long for those who supported such a thing to soon regret it.

It probably wouldn't be long after it is established that we'd all be implanted with an RFID chip (Mark of the Beast) as a means of having everything we do tracked beyond the extent of which much of everything we currently do is all ready tracked.

View PostCorp, on 05 June 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Also not sure why all rich people need to be automatically evil. Sure a lot of them are b******* but I find it hard to believe that every single person involved with this conference is a soul-less monster.

No one has claimed all rich people are evil.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 05 June 2012 - 05:29 PM.


#73    Corp

Corp

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,951 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 05 June 2012 - 06:41 PM

View PostAngel Left Wing, on 05 June 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:


It wouldn't be "just another level" of government. It would be the level of government. You would have an elite conglomerate of people ruling over every other person in the world. We would be handing over every last aspect of our freedom.

History shows us how evil governments can be. A One World Government would not change this. People in power will abuse that power. This is a fact and will always be a fact throughout the end of time.

As I stated earlier, people scoff and laugh at the idea of an "Illuminati" controlling the world, yet these same people fail to realize how that is exactly what would occur upon the implementation of a One World Government. How people can fail to understand this boggles the mind.

People who think a One World Government would be a good thing are foolish, naive, and most likely uneducated about the history of the world. If it ever happens, it wouldn't take long for those who supported such a thing to soon regret it.

It probably wouldn't be long after it is established that we'd all be implanted with an RFID chip (Mark of the Beast) as a means of having everything we do tracked beyond the extent of which much of everything we currently do is all ready tracked.


But you and others claim that the elitles are already controlling the world. So then a single world government wouldn't change a thing wouldn't it. And remember when cities and provinces lost all rights and powers to the unquestioned word from the federal governments? Yeah me neither.

Yes history has shown that governments can be evil. It's also full of examples of how a strong central government has been a good thing. There's a reason why there aren't that many city states around. Plus I'm sure Somalia would tell you that not having a federal government kind of sucks. Governments can be evil but anarchy is far worst.

Again the claim that the "Illuninati", who more than likely don't exist, already control the world. So why change a good thing? The real fear of ficitional groups boggles my mind.

So whoever holds a different opinion that you is stupid. Good to know. It's just too bad not everyone is as smart as you. :rolleyes:

So we're throwing chips and religious symbolism into the mix are we? A bunch of corrupt businessmen seeking to increase their own profits and influence I can kind of buy into. But this is too much tinfoil hat paranoia for me.


Quote

No one has claimed all rich people are evil.

And yet that seems to be the theme of this thread. If a bunch of regular people were holding a private meeting no one would care. But because these people are all very rich and influential well then they must be up to some evil things.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

#74    Left-Field

Left-Field

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2009

Posted 05 June 2012 - 07:20 PM

View PostCorp, on 05 June 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

But you and others claim that the elitles are already controlling the world. So then a single world government wouldn't change a thing wouldn't it. And remember when cities and provinces lost all rights and powers to the unquestioned word from the federal governments? Yeah me neither.

What does the federal government have to do with a One World Government?

And a One World Government would change things because then everyone would be under the same rule. Right now, that isn't the case, and as such there is still ways to combat a One World Government from coming into being.

While if a New World Order is all ready in place secretly they do hold much power and can manipulate and influece the world in many ways, they still do not have complete control.

View PostCorp, on 05 June 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Yes history has shown that governments can be evil. It's also full of examples of how a strong central government has been a good thing. There's a reason why there aren't that many city states around. Plus I'm sure Somalia would tell you that not having a federal government kind of sucks. Governments can be evil but anarchy is far worst.

I still fail to see why you are mentioning the federal government. What's the correlation between it and an entire world under the control of one government?

And all governments are corrupt - they always will be. Putting all of this corruption into one united front would be a horrible thing.

View PostCorp, on 05 June 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Again the claim that the "Illuninati", who more than likely don't exist, already control the world. So why change a good thing? The real fear of ficitional groups boggles my mind.

I always put "Illuminati" in quotations because I realize how many scoff at the mention of such a group. The thing is, whether they are labeled the "Illuminati" or simply recognized as groups of people with much influence over how the world is run doesn't really matter. You can describe them however you like, "Illuminati" just happens to be the term that tends to get used when discussing such things.

Also, the "Illuminati" is not a fictional group. There is documented history showing the organization existed at one point. Whether you believe they still do or not can be debated, but whether or not they are known to have existed at one point cannot.

It's the same with the New World Order. For years people scoffed at those who stated there is such a thing. Now that word has come out that these "elites" actually discuss a New World Order, those who once laughed at the idea as being a crazy belief put forth by conspiracy theorists try to rationalize what the New World Order actually is.

View PostCorp, on 05 June 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

So whoever holds a different opinion that you is stupid. Good to know. It's just too bad not everyone is as smart as you.

I never called anyone stupid. I said they are foolish, naive, and likely don't recognize the history of the world if they believe a One World Government is a good idea. I stand by those statements.

I am a humble person usually, but one thing I don't doubt is my intelligence concerning matters such as this. I realize that opens me up to criticism in the form of you stating "It's just too bad not everyone is as smart as you," but if that's the case so be it.

I am always interested in learning more. What's unfortunate is that many others are not, especially when it goes against what they currently believe.

View PostCorp, on 05 June 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

So we're throwing chips and religious symbolism into the mix are we? A bunch of corrupt businessmen seeking to increase their own profits and influence I can kind of buy into. But this is too much tinfoil hat paranoia for me.

RFID chips are real and it is known that somewhere down the line governments would like to make people get these implants placed into their bodies as a means of tracking things and having our chip scanned as a means of purchasing items, etc.

If you don't care to acknowledge as the "Mark of the Beast," that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that these RFID chips exist and will become more commonplace in the future. The reason I am willing to refer to it as the Mark of the Beast is because the Bible warns of this.

Given that the book was written so long ago and stated such a thing would happen, I feel it is fair to refer to it as the "Mark of the Beast." Those who don't believe in the Bible don't have to recognize it as such, but again, that doesn't change what these RFID chips will be used for.

View PostCorp, on 05 June 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

And yet that seems to be the theme of this thread. If a bunch of regular people were holding a private meeting no one would care. But because these people are all very rich and influential well then they must be up to some evil things.

People would care if regular people were gathering like this. The government would most definately care and would most definitely go about infiltrating the group to find out what it is they are discussing.

And the theme of this thread is not "all rich people are evil." There are many wealthy people in the sports, business, and entertainment industries who are rich and not deemed evil.

The theme of this thread is solely about how what the attendees of the Bilderberg Conference discuss topics about how to shape and run the world without letting their thoughts on such things made known to the public. That is the very act of operating in secrecy and those that don't find it suspicious, or feel they have a right to now, either don't realize how wrong it is or they simply don't care.


Edited by Angel Left Wing, 05 June 2012 - 07:37 PM.


#75    jugoso

jugoso

    One Love

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,597 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mexico

  • "Freedom is free of the need to feel free. Free your mind and you ass will follow. The kingdom of heaven is within"
    G.Clinton

Posted 05 June 2012 - 07:35 PM

View PostCorp, on 05 June 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

[/font]


[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]

And yet that seems to be the theme of this thread. If a bunch of regular people were holding a private meeting no one would care. But because these people are all very rich and influential well then they must be up to some evil things.
It isn´t necesarily that they are up to "evil" things but rather things that are in their best interests usually at the cost of the common Joe. They are interested in keeping power and wealth concentrated in their hands and care little about the working man.
So you have the top politicians and top business leaders meeting together to decide policy that is in THEIR best interests.
  I am definately uncomfortable with that and think that others should be too

    Do you believe Andrew Carnegie´s statement in "Gospel of Wealth"?

  "average Americans should welcome the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, because the "superior wisdom, experience, and ability" of the rich would ensure benefits for all of us."

I certainly don´t and for good reason. They are only interested in their own self-intersts. It´s the bull**** line that reducing taxes for the rich will eventually trickle down to benefit the poor. Let´s look at the facts

The Very Rich Don't Like Making Risky Investments

Marketwatch estimates that over 90% of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), the stock market, and real estate.

The Very Rich Don't Like Taking On Risky Jobs

CEOs, upper management, and financial professionals made up about 60 percent of the richest 1% of Americans in 2005. Only 3 percent were entrepreneurs

The Very Rich Corporations Don't Like Spending On America

How do corporations spend their money? To a good extent, they don't. According to Moody's, cash holdings for U.S. non-financial firms rose 3 percent to $1.24 trillion in 2011.

The top holders of cash, including Apple and Google and Intel and Coca Cola and Chevron, are spending their money on stock buybacks (which increase stock option prices), dividends to investors, and subsidiary acquisitions. According to Bloomberg, share repurchasing is at one of its highest levels in 25 years.
These guys don´t care about the 99% and that is why when private business leaders are meeting with publicly elected officials in PRIVATE, we should all be concerned IMO.

http://www.commondre...ew/2012/05/29-1

"Freedom is free of the need to feel free.
Free your mind and you ass will follow.
The kingdom of heaven is within"
G.Clinton




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users