Frank Miller Has Had His Say And Now Batman Voices His Opinion On "Occupy Wall Street"!

Ha, @lady with the baby.

LMAO!!!

LOL!

@TheGODDAMNSUPERGUY

Considering the 1% being usually rich people, Bruce Wayne is definately one of them not Batman.

And that is pretty much the joke; no matter how much he have done for the community, he is demonize for being a part of the one percent. People in general are stupid.

Haha! Is it me, or does Batman sound a little like Michael Chiklis as the Thing?

I would rather see the Hulk confront the scumbags at occupy wallstreet. His fist could occupy their faces.

HAHAHA. That was funny

Lol, although this is the silly idea back from looooooong history, take out the rich people and then everyone will be rich! Right? Wrong. After all look what it's done for the communists... :P
If you take out the initiative for people to work harder at their jobs so that they can live in a better environment, no one would work any harder so people basically would do just as little as they could (because they are going to get the same wage anyway) so that finally nothing would get done and no one would have anything.
For instance how would you like it if, you work hard at your job, yet someone else doesn't do their job, but you and the other person get the same exact wage. So then you since you have nothing to gain for working harder begin to slack off as well. Is this a good thing? No.
Another thing is get rid of the rich people is silly because who would anyone work for? How would products be made?

@TeddyKGB

@NoRegrets Love you logic there...



:P

And also... [frick] the white man and [frick] the conservatives and [frick] the corporations! Thumbs up for irrationally blaming things!

@Godzillafart Look I'm honestly not trying to be mean or anything here... I understand what you're saying, that maybe both sides are a bit wrong and a bit right... and in someways I agree with you...

I guess what it all boils down to is this: One way is slightly better than the other. The "Tax bad, Government bad" thing is more correct than "The Spending Money when you don't have it thing." That's all I'm saying, ok?

I don't want to necessarily have to get into a political debate dude, the only reason I commented that, is so that (while the video was funny) people didn't just say, "Oh bankers are bad, rich people are bad." Gernerlizing anything is bad. And I know. I said that, "Taxs are bad, Government is bad" but what I'm really saying its it doesn't have to be. Income Tax is kind of dumb really, just to refreash how it was created look at this:

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

Read more here

So the biggest thing is why is it needed? It's the same stupid idea tax the rich and it will help the poor... but no it doesn't...

Think about it, rich person hires poor person for a job, but the rich person is taxed so much that he's loses his business yet the poor person gets all his money back on tax returns, and is on several social services. So the rich person's business fails, and he lets go the poor person. Did the social services help the poor person? No. Why? Because they where made with the very thing that made the rich person's business fail. The high tax on the rich. Now wouldn't it be better if: The rich person is allowed to continue in their wealth and hires the poor person, but since he's able to make more money, he lets the poor person rise up in the business (raising his wage as well) and hires even more workers. Then the workers have a goal, to work harder at what they're doing that way they might get a raise as well. This shows a perfect example of the theory which has been tried and works. Reagan tried the Trickle-down economics which actually worked by the time the 90's came around which was one of the most prosperous times in history, despite the new government spending afterwards. Did it fix everything? No. Why? Because it wasn't done enough. So we obviously need more tax cuts, and stop the welfare programs. This way the rich give the poor the job, the poor move up in the job (if a good worker) and become middle class, thus if several do this it makes the poor class almost disappear. :) Whereas if you tax the rich as shown in the example above, it makes the person hiring become poor as well thus never being able to help the poor people as they are just as poor.

Is this what you'd say you believe? "There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests up on them."

I'm just asking is that honestly what you believe? Please answer this question.

I would like to read the book, yet because of unemployment, my family is having a hard time eating. We can't really spend extra on a book right now. I'm sorry else wise I'd read it.

What it all boils down to is you don't have to agree with my opinion. The same is I don't have to agree with yours. And when someone takes this right from us our goose is super cooked. So what I'm saying is all I was is voicing my opinion and that's all. Just as you are. The biggest thing is Obama's stimulus bill is the same as the new jobs bill. Does the same thing and will have the same effect, put the nation into more debt. We all need to try to stop this bill from going through. As with that speech which Obama said, "Those ideas have been tested and have failed." Well, the same goes for the Stimulus we need to try the tax cuts, and the welfare programs, so that everyone can WORK for THEIR money thus creating a competitive market which offers more and creates more jobs. The government would benefit as well, if you only taxed on goods, then without the other taxes it would leave the person to be able to buy more, thus making the government have more money. Is that worse than having them spend money which they don't have?

Ok please answer the questions I have asked, and please make a good analogy explaining what you think would happen with how you'd do it.

Thank you and I'm sorry I couldn't buy the book.

@superotherside - Winning!

ThaMessenger07 Well said. Leaching off the government has put us into national debt. Yet, the way it is set up that's the only way you can almost live. This is why private business is always best. :)