Skip to comments.Brzezinski: Make Rich Known Publicly To Pressure Them To Give Back
Posted on 10/17/2011 11:51:36 AM PDT by Third Person
Zbiginew Brzezinski, national security adviser under Jimmy Carter, told the "Morning Joe" program he thinks the names of the rich "should be known publicly" so the masses can "pressure some of those people to give some of it back to society." "You know, how many Americans are really fully aware of how many other good people, thats like Warren Buffett and others, who really donate a lot of their earnings to charities, to philanthropy?" Mr. Brzezinski said. "But how many more are there in the hedge funds? In the banks? In a variety of other places who on the basis of speculation literally make millions of dollars that it would take a century or two for the average person ever to make? I would like to see those lists. And they shouldn't be that difficult to produce. And I think public pressure might have also some effect, not only in terms of moving towards more systematic international coordination and regulation. But also to pressure some of those people to give some of it back, back to society."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Yep. And they weren't beyond decrying you and calling you selfish if you didn't share--or just stealing..."borrowing" it.
Great idea, Ziggy. Hey, wait a minute...now you’ve got me thinking....Hmmmm. What do you say we set up little “neighborhood watch” committees? Yeah. We’ll pick people who think like us (let’s call them “ideologically pure”), and have them report back to the central authority (that’s us) on who’s doing what, who’s saying what, and who seems to have extra dough laying around the house.
Yeah, Ziggy. You’ve really got me thinking. You’re on to something, Dude!
Yes by all means. We can start with all the members of Congress that are ripping us off to their benefit. Start with Pelosi, Schumer, Kohl, Durbin, Boxer, Feinstein, etc.
Also make them wear an identifying label on their clothing when out among the public, such as a yellow star.
Oh, wait! That’s been done to another despicable class of malefactors.
‘...Id love to see these commie lovers like Michael Moore and this clown cough up their own cash...’
exactly. these people are such hypocrites. would love to see some reporter say ‘how much do you have and when will you split your wealth with the ‘occupiers’?
“MrB: Make Marxist Known Publicly so that people will know whos responsible for their loss of freedom.”
I don’t imagine it would be hard for anyone to find out and publish the names and home addresses of all the leaders of liberal media, liberal NGOs, liberal professors, labor leaders, CPUSA, ACLU, etc.
Ziggy boy needs to crawl back whatever dark hole he came out of ! I wonder what his net worth is ?
Got to love those who dictate to us how to spend our money since they think they know better than we do but we cannot dictate back how the elite spend their money !
If I had the kind of money to be on his hit list, I’d be seriously thinking about simply moving to Singapore.
Thank you donna. That’s an excellent clip that shows plainly the virtue of the capitalist system.
What does this person get for their $1,000,000 in taxes that you don't get? More likely, he takes a lot less from the government than most, yet he has more money confiscated per year than most of us would make in a decade. My opinion of a flat tax would go like this: How much is our budget? How many people do we have in the country? Divide the first number by the second, and send everyone a bill. I don't see why a person's taxes should be based on how successful he is in the first place. He is an American citizen, same as I. He has the same freedoms is afforded the same protections as I. If you want to place use taxes on certain items to match the user with the money supporting what is used (e.g. gas tax for roads), then fine. But taxing someone more because he works hard and is successful sounds Marxist - from each...
Thanks for the clip. Phil Donhue looks completely confused listening to Friedman. His audience is also dumbfounded.
That is the tribal premise of property (that it belongs to society) used by libtards. The rational premise of property is that if a person earned any property justly and morally, then he owns it, and it belongs to him and not to society, the government, or anyone else and he should not feel guilty about keeping it and enjoying it.
More classic Friedman [along with Thomas Sowell] debating Frances Fox Piven and Peter Jay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkdSj6arn0
Kind of a silly notion.
My numbers may be a tad off, but for 2011 I believe your idea would result in a family of four receiving a federal tax bill for the amount of $35,000. You are aware this is more than the total income of a good many people, I assume?
Expecting a wealthy man to pay more in taxes than a poor man is just common sense. Like robbing banks because that is where the money is.
The real question is whether a rich man should pay a higher percentage of taxation than a poor man, and I might very probably agree with you there.
I’m curious what happened to the notion of dedicating “our lives, fortunes and sacred honor” to the survival of freedom? Very obviously the great majority of money taxed away doesn’t go to this cause, it is just wasted.
Equally obviously, IMO, a refusal to support your country financially (for its truly legitimate expenditures) is at least as unpatriotic as refusal to support it militarily. If the country goes down, what good is your money going to do you?
You seem to think “the fortune” should be off-limits.
Yes, it is frightening, how long before the rich must wear a gold dollar sign ($) on their clothing when they go out in public?
That's about my calculation, as well. Of course, it's a silly notion, you can't get $35,000 per family, but the idea is to get an understanding of what our federal behemouth costs per capita. The problem isn't in patriotism, (and I don't like taxes and patriotism being linked, sounds to Bidenesque) but in the size of the government. You said that most of the money doesn't go to the cause of freedom. Well, that's what we need to get rid of. And that doesn't depend on making sure the rich pay their 'fair share.'