Joyanna Adams

Nobody's Opinion

The Good Greedy Rich VS The Bad Greedy Rich

Nobody’s Opinion

Let’s talk about the rich, shall we? How DO they get that way? Is it just hard work? Haven’t we been told that in America, if you work hard, you will be rewarded? If that’s the case, why is it that most of our politicians are not only rich, they are getting richer? They hardly work at all. When was the last time Nancy Pelosi invented or produced anything?

What happened here?

According to Joseph E. Stiglitz of Vanity Fair;

Virtually all U.S. Senators, and most of the House of the representatives, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

So, it seems we have two sides of greed: good greed, and bad greed. How do you tell the difference? I have an easy answer: If they are plundering, not producing, they are bad.

Long ago, when mankind first came out of the sand holes of Afghanistan, the only way to get rich…was to plunder and steal, and that’s exactly what Machmud of Ghazni did. (see picture) He built an army, and plundered his way around Afghanistan. He burnt all the villages down, stole their crops, and made himself King. Then he built himself some really spectacular  palaces, and if you were really nice and he liked you, he’d  throw pearls in your mouth.

Literally.

Nobody would rise up against him, because, not only was he physically huge, he built an army of 100,000 men. After plundering his own country, he then went into India and ransacked all the villages there, because India was very wealthy at the time. As history records, and Obama never quite seems to be able to figure out, the Muslims really didn’t get much out of the desert until BP showed them how.

Machmud wasn’t interested in occupying the countries he invaded, he just taxed his own country to death to pay for his plundering escapades.

I’m sure they really appreciated that.

In the city of Kanauj, India, in the year 1010,  his army murdered all the inhabitants, destroyed 10,000 temples, pocketed gold, silver and jewels and captured 55,000 slaves and 350 elephants.

The malicious act of plundering hasn’t gone away, has it? Men still love to plunder..and the politicians have made it into a work of art.  

Barack Mahmud Hussein Obama (probably a direct descendant of Machmud on his father’s side )— a man whose own Presidential reelection will cost over one billion dollars in 2012, wants to plunder the rich. After all, the poor are being taxed to fight the wars, which are now being fought, we are told, to spread “Democracy, Freedom, and McDonalds.” We are so much in debt that, as the saying goes, you can’t get ketchup out of a cotton candy, so Obama wants to go after the gold, silver and capital gains tax of the rich.

And one really big rich guy just died—Steve Jobs.

From The Rich Times:

Mrs. Jobs is likely to pay $1 Billion in estate taxes after the passing away of Steve Jobs. He had already put shares that he owned in Apple ($2.05 billion) and Disney (worth $4.74 billion) in a trust in order to avoid probate taxes. If Apple’s late co- founder left his estate to his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs, the family won’t be liable for the 35 percent estate tax until she dies or gives money to others, according to estate planners.

If Powell had decided to stick with the stock then she may even have been taxed on the 3.8 percent levy that the American government is planning on unearned gains. Under U.S. law, the trust can sell the shares and incur taxes only on the appreciation since Jobs’ death — a gain of about $338 million. If Jobs had died in 2010, when there was no estate tax, his heirs would have faced the capital gains tax on his entire investment profit if they had sold. That provision lapsed in 2011 when the estate tax was reinstated.

Nobody Knows what her readers think about this, but it seems, if a man makes a product, that is a benefit to the world, he should be able to pass his wealth on to his children. 

The politicians as we have learned are becoming billionaires in office, working with the top 1 percent, affecting laws, and getting knowledge of insider trading. They are not good greedy producers, but bad greedy plunderers.  Our personal Congressional/Presidential Machmud has merged with Goldman Sachs, Freddie and Fannie, and the Federal Reserve, and has managed to plunder the whole world of untold trillions.

Machmud would have thrown pearls into all their mouths, and then..

Plundered them.

Have we got a Machmud Trojan Horse in the White House?  

 Nobody Thinks we should open his mouth, and look for pearls.

November 27, 2011 - Posted by | capitalism, conspiracy, corruption, criminals, economy | , , , , , , , ,

6 Comments »

  1. The World’s Greatest Treasurer of the day (back then) Australia’s Paul Keating, – he of the aristocratic French furniture and clocks – called that ‘The Magic Pudding’ Argus

    Like

    Amfortas's avatar Comment by Amfortas | November 29, 2011 | Reply

    • It’s been done before? Bummer, I thought I wuz clever … but it proves that great geniuses think alike, there’s hope for me yet.

      Now to look up ‘Magic Puddings’ …

      Like

      Argus's avatar Comment by Argus | November 29, 2011 | Reply

  2. Given that taxes are unearned income (never earned, just taken by force from earners); and given ” … the 3.8 percent levy that the American government is planning on unearned gains … ” —doesn’t that open an infinity box?

    Won’t the US government be taxing itself for ever?

    Like

    Argus's avatar Comment by Argus | November 28, 2011 | Reply

    • Good point!

      Joyanna Adams

      ________________________________

      Like

      Joyanna Adams's avatar Comment by joyannaadams | November 29, 2011 | Reply

  3. There I was, in 99% agreement. The one percent stopper though came with …”Men still love to plunder.”. Plunder whom? Other men of course; the builders and producers, as we surely cannot claim that Mrs Jobs and her predecessors all over the world and back even in Machmud’s day actually produced much of anything at all. And those men – the vastly vastest majority never even dream of plundering anyone.

    But today we have equal opportunity plundering. Hence Nancy and Hillary and even our very own Oz Femi-nazi-Bogan Gloriana Julia, not to mention the millions of women who retire five years before the average non-plunderer chap, and die five years after him, They happily live off the proceeds of plundering the modest leavings of men.

    Most women do not plunder either although they are afforded every opportunity, unequalled by men. They have the Family Court to do it for them. Just think how much plundering Mrs Jobs could have been feted for had she decided to leave Mr Jobs and ‘find herself’ with the proceeds of his inventiveness.

    So let us dispense with rather than dispense easy misandry.

    The modern Politician is indeed ‘in it for the money’. I just cannot think of a politician today who sees him or herself as a ‘servant of the people’. Instead they are ‘in Power’ and feather their own nests very well. Crikey, even Machmud would have been jealous of Nancy and her leather seated Plane, let alone Hillary’s ability to flit across half the world to do a bit of weekend plundering in Rome or Paris. Lord knows they return with more freebies in hand than Father Christmas..

    Like

    Amfortas's avatar Comment by Amfortas | November 27, 2011 | Reply

  4. I can’t get enough … see you tomorrow.

    Don

    Like

    ldsrr91's avatar Comment by ldsrr91 | November 27, 2011 | Reply


Leave a comment