Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Not envy but rather anger and resentment that they lie, steal and cheat to take money away from those who earn it and use it to line their own pockets.

Sounds like a very good discription of the Democrat left. An individual takes the risk to start a personal business using some personal investment, looks to some hard financial choices to build upon that investment and have the ability to pay back some additional business loans, earns some success with the ability to hire more workers as a result, is able to earn (dare we use the word) some profit based on "learned" financial investment decisions, and is able to expand his business to other locations bringing further employment possibilities. Then the Federal Government around the ideology of liberal Democrats, which hasn't taken any risk or staked any PERSONAL financial investment, demands a large share into someone elses hard work, rewards those that live on welfare and those without the initiative to earn through any risk of their own, in exchange for a guaranteed voting block of Democrat supporters who will help the liberal Democrats retain their power in office.

I'm sick of the "job creator" lie. While the president busts his hump to actually create jobs, the lying scum like McConnell and Boehner tell us we can't expect the 1% to pay their fair share because they're creating jobs.

(1) Where has all the steel workers in America gone? Last I checked there is still the great "demand" in this world for steel to meet with the need for more bridges, skyscrapers, power plants, warships, commercial airliners, etc. Yet we don't have the big boom of steel workers in THIS country like we had in the 1940s. Who is responsible with providing the employment of American workers? Certainly not those on welfare, or the person at McDonald's flipping burgers. Was it the demand that took all the steel industry away from the American worker?

(2) Obama's answer is to have the Federal Government provide jobs through infrastructure. Who are Obama and the Democrats looking to increase taxes on to pay for this increased spending? Is it those on welfare or taxpayers making under $30,000 a year, or the rich and those with over $250,000 in assets? (let's call it like it is, increased taxes on the business owners of America along with the millionaire investors)

And, amazingly, there are actually voters who are stupidly falling for this lie.

Think about that the next time the Chinese workers are building products of high demand and not the American people. You think California will remain the only silicon valley of the world? You don't think what happened to our steel industry won't happen to any other industry in world demand? Let's be real. If you don't like earning $12 an hour, start your own business and then YOU can pay YOUR employees the over $25 an hour you are demanding businesses to make. Set the example instead of crying about it!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

But In America everyone has a chance at least to be that Billionaire.

RATFLMAO!!

sure, sure....

All it requires is a little hard work, not being afraid of going through a setback as you "learn", and some personal investment. Not everyone has the ability to handle that kind of stress, which is why what you earn is based upon what you are willing to risk. Are you simply looking for an easy way to create wealth, one that doesn't require a little extra effort? (It's an honest question you have to be willing to think about and answer for yourself)

 

[newpolitics]

A rich person, like Romney, saying that others are envious of his wealth is presumptuous, and does not reflect reality, only his personal defense of others resentment, for reasons which he could never understand, because he has never been in their shoes. What is even more presumptuous is the implication that people want to be him, or like him, even if only in financial wealth. It communicates the idea that the others are worth less intrinsically, because they do no have his money. It says a lot about how he sees the less wealthy, and therefore, how they will be regarded and treated once he is in office, should he win. His arrogance hopefully will not get that far.

If other people don't want Romney's money, then why all this constant harping about the rich "paying their fair share?"

That's obviously an appeal to envy. Only the sleaziest brand of demagogue would deny it.

This is only your perception, again, based on your beliefs, and does not reflect reality, only that which you wish was reality, because it would confirm your beliefs. In other words: confirmation bias, as I suspect is the case with many republicans claiming the same as you.

 

[occupied]

The only thing I envy the wealthy on is that they actually have a government that represents them..

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So you aren't angry with the rich because they have more money than you? Isn't that the very definition of envy?

It's not an issue of being "angry" with the rich.

It's about being angry at their conduct.

In times past, the wealthy kind of understood they had obligations- to create good paying jobs, to stand up and contribute back to the society. And there are a few who still do.

The modern ones, like Mr. Romney who follow the "Greed is Good" mantra. not so much.

No sin in being rich. There is a sin in being greedy. (And I use the term "sin" in a non-religious way.)

I don't envy the rich. I often think what would I change in my life if I got hit by a lottery ticker or something, and in most of my thought expiraments, I give the money away to my relatives, maybe travel, maybe start a shop to keep myself busy, maybe dedicate myself to my writing.

Never in those do I think, "I'm going to buy up a business, screw the people who work their into taking smaller wages until I can sell off the assets at a profit." it just isn't who I am.

Maybe that's why I'm not rich, but I have no regrets.

There is more than one way to be rich. The purchasing, dividing, tearing apart and selling a business is just one way that's more about financial knowledge than personal stake and effort. It all comes down to your own personal integrity you build and display to others. Some don't find much value towards maintaining "character" while building their own personal success, because it may conflict with making certain decisions and the choice to remain true to yourself is just too hard. It's not impossible, just requires a bit more of an effort. People can always tell what values are important to an owner by the methods they choose to run their business. If you don't like how someone runs their corporation, while you also have attained a similar skill, and if you feel you can handle the stress and choices you will need to make, take the personal risk on yourself and go for it! Show the customers around you the way a company OUGHT to be run. Complaining how someone else runs their personal enterprise is always the easy part. The biggest complainers are usually those unwilling to do the work and make the difficult choices themselves.

 

[Oldstyle]

Please... I realize you buy into the Limbaugh propaganda about how the poor rich are just paying too much, but that isn't the case.

I'd have no problem if we went back to where we were pre-Bush-43.

Point is, I think there should be a combination of spending cuts AND tax increases, but the rich should pay the lion's share of them.

Sorry to disappoint but I don't listen to Limbaugh or watch Hannity.

Totally agree on the spending cuts as well.

If they raise taxes then they need to raise taxes on everyone. The middle class is where the revenue is. There just aren't enough rich out there.

Have you ever considered cause and effect? Before the infamous Bush tax cuts, we had a budget surplus. We fought two wars on the Chinese credit card and reduced revenue buy cutting taxes on those who could at least afford to pay taxes.

Look at us now.

Everyone knows that there aren't enough rich people to reduce the deficit alone. But everyone also knows that raising taxes on those who can afford it coupled with spending cuts makes the most sense. Congressional Republicans claim that closing loop holes is, in effect, a tax increase. So, their solution is to cut from those who can least afford it while coddling those who are raking in the most cash.

That's the attitude most Americans find perplexing. Why should we continue to cut from the poor while the rich get all the gravy and feel that this will somehow result in a better country for all?

What I find most "perplexing", Nosmo...is that despite a whole bunch of TALK about spending cuts, they never seem to occur. Anyone that dares to bring up the uncomfortable truth about the cost of our entitlements going forward is instantly accused of wanting to roll Grandma off a cliff in her wheelchair. The Super Committee was formed to come up with cuts because neither the President nor the Congress had the political stomach to make them...and then the Super Committee kicked that can down the road as well.

Look, I have no problem at all with pressure being put on corporations to lower the lavish compensations given to CEO (generally by other CEO's who are then rewarded for their largess with a sweet deal of their own) but I don't think taking more money out of the Private Sector to waste in the Public Sector is going to make us a "better" country.

We had a budget surplus under Clinton because of the Dot Com Boom. Our spending was approximately the same...we were just taking in a lot more revenue because of all the taxes being paid on Dot Com businesss. We don't have a Dot Com Boom happening now...nor do I see one on the horizen. So if we raise taxes to the Clinton level we won't achieve the same results. I'm sorry but it just won't happen. All you'll do is slow whatever small growth we DO have and most likely put us back into another recession. Let's be smart about this for a change...shall we? There is a REASON that even Christina Romer, Obama's former economist...advises against tax increases on ANYONE in this type of economy...it's because those tax increases won't help the economy. Keynesian economic theory calls for tax increases during economic booms (like we did during the Dot Com Boom?) and cautions against tax increases during economic downturns. Raising taxes on the rich is being proposed because it works politically...not because it works economically.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So you aren't angry with the rich because they have more money than you? Isn't that the very definition of envy?

It's not an issue of being "angry" with the rich.

It's about being angry at their conduct.

In times past, the wealthy kind of understood they had obligations- to create good paying jobs, to stand up and contribute back to the society. And there are a few who still do.

The modern ones, like Mr. Romney who follow the "Greed is Good" mantra. not so much.

No sin in being rich. There is a sin in being greedy. (And I use the term "sin" in a non-religious way.)

I don't envy the rich. I often think what would I change in my life if I got hit by a lottery ticker or something, and in most of my thought expiraments, I give the money away to my relatives, maybe travel, maybe start a shop to keep myself busy, maybe dedicate myself to my writing.

Never in those do I think, "I'm going to buy up a business, screw the people who work their into taking smaller wages until I can sell off the assets at a profit." it just isn't who I am.

Maybe that's why I'm not rich, but I have no regrets.

When I think of conservatives words like "I", "me", "mine" and "narcissist" come to mind...

Actually that sounds a lot like those who would rather look to the "Federal BIG Government" to find their financial success, rather than build that success on their own through a little hard work, learning from failure, and taking a chance on themselves.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Sure is.

What the left really hates, and who they really want to go after. Is people who have already earned their money. It pisses them off that they have Millions of Dollars in the bank and no income to tax. They ignore of course they it was taxed when it was earned, any interest on it is taxed, and when they die it will be taxed again.

They just think people should not have money laying around. Everyone should live week to week you know.

lol

a lot of it is Envy. Yes, it is messed up that some people make Billions while other don't, But In America everyone has a chance at least to be that Billionaire. Same can't be said for most countries, and definitely can't be said for Socialist ones. Socialist Countries have a Rich elite class, it's just that the Socialist Parties who control the countries get to choose who gets to be the Billionaires, and that is exactly what the left in America wants.

To seize the money already earned by the rich to pay for their agenda.

Attitudes like this are what people like Romney have successfully banked on.

Yeah, because saving failing businesses is such an evil act.

If you always are there to "bail" a company out, how are they ever going to learn to make better financial decisions for themselves? The airline industry is still around and thriving, dispite the amount of revenues lost and threats of bankruptcy following 9-11, yet none of them received a big government taxpayer dime towards saving their business.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Sweet evil Jesus, the man's a walking gaffe Machine.

Any minute now, I expect him to say, "let them eat cake!"

Someone asked him is he could say, "let them in cake" in French. Mitt said, "yes, but I won't".
True story.

All the elections that hes lost ... I'm sure its because you cannot miss the disconnect between the words and the face. He's crooked and he can't hide it.

Him hiding in the fancy palace during the war - If he hadn't lied about it, if he had told the truth, would anyone hold it against him?

Instead, we're seeing the beautiful building where he lived while he's saying he slept on a pile of donkey dung and ate old carrots -- or whatever his ridiculous story was.

Why do crooks like Romney believe they won't get caught? Why does he think we won't find out about his sister in Mexico or his beliefs about polygamy? Or any of the other lies he's told.

When it comes to the economy, I'd rather look to someone who knows how to build a successful business than a community organizer who never ran one in his life (if he even set foot in a corproate executive positon at all) or fired an indivdual in order to find someone else with a chance to develop enough success to go forward. A perfect example is how long Obama has held onto Tim Geithner. Obama doesn't have the slightest clue how a corporation succeeds to maintain employment, which is why you barely saw a greater than 1% drop in unemployment since he took office.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it ain't. That's EXACTLY what's been happening. Wages have been flat, pensions are gone, benefits are reduced and the rich are getting richer.

And no one is forcing anyone to join. It's the same sort of "force" executives use in the first place.

Pensions should be gone.

Or would you want to pay more for everything than you do now?

To think a company has to guarantee the income of a retiree is ridiculous.

And I have been forced to join unions before so don't tell me a union can't force you to join. I had to join and pay dues just so I could get a job.

If a pensioner is promised that money after a lifetime of service to a company and then that company decides to take that cash and give it to stockholders who did not earn it after working for the company for twenty or thirty years, why on earth should anyone think of that as beneficial? Are pensioners supposed to rot after this Conservative onslaught? You would eliminate Social Security and eliminate pension plans. What's the future supposed look like for retirees? Color them Conservative bleak.

If one retired under a contract that included a pension then the contract should be honored.

We should let the government pensions disappear by attrition and all government employees under an age to be determined should be switched from a defined benefit pension to a defined contribution plan like a 401k. You know like the rest of us.

And I would love to see Social Security privatized. I guarantee you that if I had control over the money stolen from me for the biggest slush fund in the world that I would already be retired and quite wealthy. And you could be too.

 

[paulitician]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- According to Mitt Romney, the nation's growing focus on income inequality is all about envy.

"You know, I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare," the leading Republican presidential candidate said Wednesday on The Today Show.

When asked if there are any fair questions about wealth distribution, Romney replied, "It's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like."

Romney: Income Inequality Is Just 'Envy' - Politics News Story - WCVB Boston

Bravo Romney! It's true. The Democrats have worked very hard for several decades to divide the People with their Class Warfare and Race-Baiting agenda. It's all in Saul Alinsky's Marxist Community Organizer manifesto, 'Rules for Radicals.' All Democrats follow Alinky's rules religiously. Mitt Romney clearly understands that. I'm actually starting to like this guy.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

 

[drsmith1072]

A rich person, like Romney, saying that others are envious of his wealth is presumptuous, and does not reflect reality, only his personal defense of others resentment, for reasons which he could never understand, because he has never been in their shoes. What is even more presumptuous is the implication that people want to be him, or like him, even if only in financial wealth. It communicates the idea that the others are worth less intrinsically, because they do no have his money. It says a lot about how he sees the less wealthy, and therefore, how they will be regarded and treated once he is in office, should he win. His arrogance hopefully will not get that far.

If other people don't want Romney's money, then why all this constant harping about the rich "paying their fair share?"

That's obviously an appeal to envy. Only the sleaziest brand of demagogue would deny it.

Wanting what is "fair" does not equate to envy. Even the right admits that the tax code is messed up and yet when the left talks about how it's messed up the right cries "class warfare" and now they follow it with the latest talking point and try to flip it back on those questioning the tax system claiming that they must be "envious".

Do you not see how ridiculously absurd that argument is?? I tried to point that out last night by bringing up the republican position on "broadening the tax base" and making the bottom 47% who pay no income taxes pay their "fair share" but those who responded would rather make it about me personally than discuss the contradiction in their own positions.
If talking about the tax code and wanting to change it to make it more "fair" is envy then right wingers must be envious of the 47% who don't pay income taxes based on their low income.

 

[drsmith1072]

And that is the choice of the company it is not your choice to decide that is it?

We can discuss that. First, please look into a few of them. You may find that legislating such a thing could be good for the country. Maybe you won't. As it is now, you speak from a position of ignorance.

No I speak from a position of standing up for private citizens to be able to pay people what as much as they want.

Hey you can only do business with companies that operate in a way with which you agree. that is your choice. What a company that you have nothing to do with pays its people is none of your business.

So are you for or agaisnt the minimum wage? The minimum wage is the government defining and regulating the minimum amount of money paid to employees in this country so why is it ok for the bottom to be defined and regulated but not the top??

 

[drsmith1072]

So unions should be able to force people to join and pay dues?

If it's a union shop, yeah. In fact, I think union shops should be mandetory for anyone who employs more than 50 people.

Frankly, I'd have no problem paying 10% in dues if I were making 30% more.

Unions created the middle class in this country. Not the beneficence of the Mitt Romneys of the world.

Now, I have my criticism of unions, and a lot of their misfortunes are of their own making. But in principle, it's a good idea for workers to have someone to bargain for them collectively.

So you'd like the choice of joining a union while forcing others to join with you even if they would rather not.

OK we know where you stand on personal choice.

You have a choice not to work at a company that employs more than 50 workers meaning that you would not fit into the standards proposed by joe. You make the choice to work in a union shop then you have only yourself to blame.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We can discuss that. First, please look into a few of them. You may find that legislating such a thing could be good for the country. Maybe you won't. As it is now, you speak from a position of ignorance.

No I speak from a position of standing up for private citizens to be able to pay people what as much as they want.

Hey you can only do business with companies that operate in a way with which you agree. that is your choice. What a company that you have nothing to do with pays its people is none of your business.

So are you for or agaisnt the minimum wage? The minimum wage is the government defining and regulating the minimum amount of money paid to employees in this country so why is it ok for the bottom to be defined and regulated but not the top??

I don't think it matters what the minimum wage is.

 

[drsmith1072]

hyperbole.

Unions did some good work in the past and now the things you mentioned are more or less the standard in the country.

To think that overtime laws and workplace safety will all of a sudden disappear if people are not forced to join unions is stupid.

Maybe unions should market themselves like any other business or advocacy association rather than having the ability to force people to join.

No it ain't. That's EXACTLY what's been happening. Wages have been flat, pensions are gone, benefits are reduced and the rich are getting richer.

And no one is forcing anyone to join. It's the same sort of "force" executives use in the first place.

Pensions should be gone.

Or would you want to pay more for everything than you do now?

To think a company has to guarantee the income of a retiree is ridiculous.

And I have been forced to join unions before so don't tell me a union can't force you to join. I had to join and pay dues just so I could get a job.

You could have "chosen" to work somewhere else. However, you "chose" to work there and were required to work under the rules that applied to that job before you "chose" to take it. Seems to me that you had a porblem with the "choice" that you made.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If it's a union shop, yeah. In fact, I think union shops should be mandetory for anyone who employs more than 50 people.

Frankly, I'd have no problem paying 10% in dues if I were making 30% more.

Unions created the middle class in this country. Not the beneficence of the Mitt Romneys of the world.

Now, I have my criticism of unions, and a lot of their misfortunes are of their own making. But in principle, it's a good idea for workers to have someone to bargain for them collectively.

So you'd like the choice of joining a union while forcing others to join with you even if they would rather not.

OK we know where you stand on personal choice.

You have a choice not to work at a company that employs more than 50 workers meaning that you would not fit into the standards proposed by joe. You make the choice to work in a union shop then you have only yourself to blame.

Say that when every place is union like in the trades.

it's extortion plain and simple for a union to force people to pay tens of thousands of dollars to them over a working lifetime simply to be able to work

 

[drsmith1072]

hyperbole.

Unions did some good work in the past and now the things you mentioned are more or less the standard in the country.

To think that overtime laws and workplace safety will all of a sudden disappear if people are not forced to join unions is stupid.

Maybe unions should market themselves like any other business or advocacy association rather than having the ability to force people to join.

No it ain't. That's EXACTLY what's been happening. Wages have been flat, pensions are gone, benefits are reduced and the rich are getting richer.

And no one is forcing anyone to join. It's the same sort of "force" executives use in the first place.

Unions are nothing more than a pathway for the "rich" union bosses to perform legalized extortion and racketeering for the purposes of gaining more power and wealth. They steal the fruits of "your" labor, just like the govt.

WOW somoene got their knowledge of unions by watching Hoffa, LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Attitudes like this are what people like Romney have successfully banked on.

Yeah, because saving failing businesses is such an evil act.

If you always are there to "bail" a company out, how are they ever going to learn to make better financial decisions for themselves? The airline industry is still around and thriving, dispite the amount of revenues lost and threats of bankruptcy following 9-11, yet none of them received a big government taxpayer dime towards saving their business.

really?

Senate approves $15 billion airline bailout

In the wake of last week's terrorist attacks involving hijacked airplanes, the U.S. Senate passed sweeping legislation Friday to aid the crippled airline industry and set up a government compensation fund for victims to help deter lawsuits.By a vote of 96-1, the Senate approved $15 billion in financial aid for the airline industry -- $5 billion in immediate cash assistance and $10 billion in loan guarantees -- in an effort to keep several major carriers from collapsing

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-21/...lout-airline-industry-major-carriers?_s=PM:US

oops

 

[drsmith1072]

No I speak from a position of standing up for private citizens to be able to pay people what as much as they want.

Hey you can only do business with companies that operate in a way with which you agree. that is your choice. What a company that you have nothing to do with pays its people is none of your business.

So are you for or agaisnt the minimum wage? The minimum wage is the government defining and regulating the minimum amount of money paid to employees in this country so why is it ok for the bottom to be defined and regulated but not the top??

I don't think it matters what the minimum wage is.

Is that the best avoidance that you have to offer?? Really?? Care to answer the questions asked?