Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

[Katzndogz]

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

I don't think it is just "envy" that propel people to talk about wealth inequality.

The thing that tends to strike a chord with, say, the lower and middle class working folks is "What the hell did they do to get so rich?"

Yes, some rich people worked hard to become rich--but not all of them.
And for those that hit the genetic jackpot, why are they excused from the working class due to the activities of their parents(Their mom or pop may have worked hard, but the child maybe a lazy bum that could not survive the real world if left in it for a week!)


In short, the make-up of the wealthy is not soley dependent on talent and hardwork. There are other factors that determine who will become rich and who will not. Is that a good thing or bad thing depends on which side of the capitalist arguement you sit on.

(Personally, I like the idea of becoming rich without working hard. Not only does it fly into the face of rights arguements for capitalism, It also flies into the face of leftist arguement for socialsim! Luck is an MF global executive!)

The child could just as well be a second or third generation welfare bum that we all have to pay for. The children of the rich usually work. Most of the time quite hard. Especially if the parent or parents worked. Even Paris Hilton works at the several enterprises she has going on at any one time. Ivanka Trump puts in 80-85 hour weeks along with her Dad.

 

[Barb]

It is about envy.

You cannot show me how anyone who makes more money than you actually denies you the opportunity to make more money yourself.

So rather than improving yourself so as to improve your own marketability and your income you would rather whine that it's someone else's fault.

Ah..so when Conservatives constantly bring up Soros..it's a class envy thing.

Conservatives don't want to take his money away do they?

They complain about how he uses it, and for what purposes, don't they?

 

[Dr Grump]

Is your position that income inequality should be eliminated?

Of course it's not.

I wasn't asking you, dipstick.

If it's "an issue," then you must be opposed to it. Otherwise, why bring it up?

The nation isn't focusing on income inequality, only turds like you are.

Yeah, but I'm telling you fucknut...

Who wants income equality? That will never happen. You are missing the main points, but that is no surprise - you have the IQ of an amoeba...

 

[Trajan]

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

Nobody is angry at rich people because they have more money. Well, none that I know of. How SOME of them get that money, that is a different story....

Also, how they use that money to influence Washington....is another story, too..

so what are the approved methods for acquiring enough money to be in the one % and not be trashed for being so?...cause I don't see any exceptions being made.......

and when obama makes a fractured stupid argument to buttress his supposed points ala fair share, what is that suppose to drive anyway? careful discernment?

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Nobody is angry at rich people because they have more money. Well, none that I know of. How SOME of them get that money, that is a different story....

Also, how they use that money to influence Washington....is another story, too..

so what are the approved methods for acquiring enough money to be in the one % and not be trashed for being so?...cause I don't see any exceptions being made.......

and when obama makes a fractured stupid argument to buttress his supposed points ala fair share, what is that suppose to drive anyway? careful discernment?

Being ethical and honest for a start. And paying your taxes instead of looking for loopholes. There are plenty of people who have made a lot of money via being honest and ethical.

I don't have any problem with people making money, nor should they be limited in the amount they make.

There are a couple of things that really piss me off:
1) Stupid boards of publically listed companies who employ CEOs, whose contract gives them nice fat bonuses even if the stock price tanks and the company makes no money. Are they so 'desperate' to get a particular CEO they'll give them ridiculous clauses in their contracts that give them huge bonuses and payouts?

2) The financial sector fighting tooth and nail any regulations that scrutinise how they do business. Especially those getting govt handouts. What are they afraid of?

3) How they use that money to lobby govt. You know, in South America, Africa and most parts of Asia we call in bribary, yet in the US, conservatives call it free speech. You think it follows the gospel of truth, freedom and the American way when I can give a political party monies to influence its decision on an issue? Is that what your FF's envisioned - he with the biggest pay check wins? I'm pretty sure they didn't, but the people who run these tinpot dictatorships in Africa, ME, South/Central America and parts of Asia certainly do. Do you think your conservative compatriots would be liked to be aligned with such people/thoughts?

 

[Barb]

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 didn't have to take the job if joining a union was against your principles.

Must've been a good job, with good pay and benefits? If it was, you'd have to give the union credit for that.

 

[Trajan]

Nobody is angry at rich people because they have more money. Well, none that I know of. How SOME of them get that money, that is a different story....

Also, how they use that money to influence Washington....is another story, too..

so what are the approved methods for acquiring enough money to be in the one % and not be trashed for being so?...cause I don't see any exceptions being made.......

and when obama makes a fractured stupid argument to buttress his supposed points ala fair share, what is that suppose to drive anyway? careful discernment?

Being ethical and honest for a start. And paying your taxes instead of looking for loopholes. There are plenty of people who have made a lot of money via being honest and ethical.

I don't have any problem with people making money, nor should they be limited in the amount they make.

There are a couple of things that really piss me off:
1) Stupid boards of publically listed companies who employ CEOs, whose contract gives them nice fat bonuses even if the stock price tanks and the company makes no money. Are they so 'desperate' to get a particular CEO they'll give them ridiculous clauses in their contracts that give them huge bonuses and payouts?
2) The financial sector fighting tooth and nail any regulations that scrutinise how they do business. Especially those getting govt handouts. What are they afraid of?

using loopholes in the tax code ? seriously? deductions, are deductions....I used to be able to write off my car registration, is that a bad thing? because if you are in the middle class you get some too, and those below that, get tax credits via the way the tax code is written too and actually collect money after not having paid any net taxes..... I don't agree that co's should pay no net taxes but then again, our brilliant boys in gov. write it, like oh, charlie rangel....


as for #1 I agree with you but, the board and the stock holders pay for that stupidity....not our problem really...*shrugs*

#2, well, not every 'reform' makes sense, ala Sarbanne Oxely...? the same people who write them are the same folks how helped blow up the housing market.

 

[Barb]

I had to take that job because it was the only one I could get to at the time. I was in school and didn't have a car because I was saving for tuition.

And the only thing I said about unions were that they should not be able to force people to join them and pay dues.

LOL. You did not HAVE to take that job. No one forced you to take it, you made a CHOICE and are now whining about it.
Furthermore, you said a lot more than just that. You presented a claim to try and personalize your spin and claimed that you were forced to join a union and pay dues in order to get the job and yet it was your CHOICE on whether or not to take that job and you knew ahead of time the requirements BEFORE you took it.
That is all on you and you alone.

I didn't have much of a choice. I was 17 (told them I was 18) unskilled and with no transportation.

It was the only job I could take that I could get to at the time. You have no idea what my situation was back then.

And it was a good job with good benefits. Why bitch about it? And WTF should anyone care what your "situation was back then," when your stance is that you and global corporate should give a shit less what anyone's situation is now?
Circumstances beyond your control?
Many people are dealing with a reality that is beyond their control now, under FAR less auspicious circumstances, and we should cry for you because a union forced you to accept a WAY better pay and benefits package than would have been possible (given your skills and experience) than you would have without one? OH, the HORROR.

As to the "envy" theme in this thread:
"Envy" has been used to the purposes of the right since forever.
The Air Traffic Controllers, and
every worker protection since then.

But you know, what ?
The unions didn't borrow the money that initially put us in debt to China to fund increased military budgets and a HUGE tax cut to the rich.
That was St. Ronnie

THAT borrowing caused the trade deficit:

The 25% federal tax cut caused a considerable addition to the federal deficit, and an almost 20% rise in foreign investment on that debt that led to higher large dollar holdings and an unfavorable trade imbalance. While Reagan blamed the deficits on Congress, conservative pundits convinced many in society to blame the unions when factories moved to other countries. However, 95% of the reason for the deficits was high defense spending and the refusal to raise taxes to pay for it. In 1982, the deficit was 90 billion dollars, and by 1987 they totaled 283 billion dollars. The shortfall of revenue required the US to borrow money, which raised interest rates. The higher interest rates attracted foreign capital, which caused the value of the dollar to rise disproportionately to its true value. As the dollar skyrocketed, imports became cheaper than products made by American labor, and the trade imbalance became even more disproportionate as foreign markets could not afford American made goods at the inflated dollar value either. And this, not the demands for decent working conditions and reasonable increases in wages by unions, not regulations that prohibited industry from polluting our water supply, and not a tax code that billed them at a very reasonable rate for valuable services rendered was what compelled many American businesses to relocate to third-world countries in search of low wage labor platforms. While all this was taking place, before American corporations fully realized the potential globalization offered to turn the labor pool and consumer base that afforded them such success\o/ into a fun-house image of the third world, German and Japanese Auto corporations, their economies having benefited from US Government funded reconstruction and production contracts for supplies needed for the Vietnam War, outsourced their factories to the low wage labor platforms of the Southern United States.

me

And the unions didn't raise the contribution to Social Security beyond what the current generation of old folks needed to keep it afloat:

In 1984, a Reagan campaign ad declared that it was “Morning in America.” It didn’t say that for most of us it was Monday morning in America. *_O The Economic Recovery Tax Act was responsible for long-term deficits and a cumulative revenue loss of $300 billion by the end of 1984 and $1 trillion by the end of 1987. Unlike the uppity crust that partied like rock stars for the previous four years, the rest of us picked up the party tab by way of a graduating Social Security tax increase among other “revenue enhancements.” This particular adjustment, overtly put into place in response to a modest shortfall of Social Security revenue, :-| covertly covered a national deficit that nearly tripled by 1983.

also me

See, the thing is, you want the government to fund the things you approve of, without really understanding or accounting for the resulting cost, or how and to whom that cost is charged. All this too, is forcing people to pay for things they don't want, need, and does not benefit them.

At least the union dues you paid DIRECTLY benefited you.

 

[Trajan]

st. ronnie... hows that credit card with china looking now?

that union dues goes to fund candidates that in turn wash the back of those that provided it...or doesn't that count ?


on a related note; Europe has a military that might make a decent fight of it with napoleons old grand army, yet they are drowning in debt and obligations they cannot fund....hello.

 

[elvis]

Chris has penis envy.


True envy.

 

[bripat9643]

I wasn't asking you, dipstick.

If it's "an issue," then you must be opposed to it. Otherwise, why bring it up?

The nation isn't focusing on income inequality, only turds like you are.

Yeah, but I'm telling you fucknut...

Who wants income equality? That will never happen. You are missing the main points, but that is no surprise - you have the IQ of an amoeba...[/QUOTE]

If you don't want income equality, then what are all you leftwing turds whining about?

 

[bripat9643]

How do unions use "force" to insert themselves?? Care to explain how unions are no different than "quido"?? Got proof or are you just running of the fiction that you have been fed about unions for years? Oh yeah those evil teachers unions are going to break peoples legs. Then there are the postal workers if you tick them off they might just have to crumble your junk mail up. oh don't forget the firefighter and polce unions those are the worst.

I was hoping you were stupid enough to continue this argument. The union obviously inserts itself. Otherwise, why is it even involved? When a certification election is held, the government us*es force to impose the result on the employer and the employees, whether they agree with the result or not. You have to be a monumental imbecile to believe unionism is voluntary. A majority vote does not make it voluntary any more than it makes paying the income tax voluntary.

Your hyperbole only serves to make you look ridiculous.

The fact is that IF skull's story is based on fact and he had to join a union in order to get a job then he knew that going into the job and made a CHOICE to take the job anyway knowing full well what to expect and if he didn't know then that his own fault.

Right, and if a businessman decides to start a business in Quido's territory, he knows what Guido's terms were going into the deal and "made a CHOICE" to do it anyway "knowing full well what to expect and if he didn't know then that his own fault." In both cases, those are the kind of choices a thug offers you.

You're a fucking thug.

You aren't fooling anyone.

So in other words you can't answer simple questions about your own statements and have to try and repeat the same BS over and over again as if repetition makes them true? Got it. You used hyperbole such as "gun point" and accused the unions of using "force" so I asked you to explain and provide something real to support your claims and all you came back with was more of the same BS hyperbole.

Thanks for showing that you have nothing REAL to offer.

A certification election is an example of unions using force, you stupid shit stain. Government enforces the results of certification elections. Government uses guns to enforce everything it does. It uses force <===== See the word "force?" Does that clear it up for you, moron?

Only a true imbecile would fail to understand where the force comes in after I have explained it three times. You're obviously just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!"

 

[The T]

st. ronnie... hows that credit card with china looking now?

that union dues goes to fund candidates that in turn wash the back of those that provided it...or doesn't that count ?


on a related note; Europe has a military that might make a decent fight of it with napoleons old grand army, yet they are drowning in debt and obligations they cannot fund....hello.

Yep. Money laundering extrodinaire...doing shit you and I would go to jail over.

 

[Chris]

st. ronnie... hows that credit card with china looking now?

that union dues goes to fund candidates that in turn wash the back of those that provided it...or doesn't that count ?


on a related note; Europe has a military that might make a decent fight of it with napoleons old grand army, yet they are drowning in debt and obligations they cannot fund....hello.

Yep. Money laundering extrodinaire...doing shit you and I would go to jail over.

But enough about Karl Rove...

 

[jgarden]

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

The Rich and the Kingdom of God: Matthew 19:16-24

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, &#8220;Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?&#8221;
17 &#8220;Why do you ask me about what is good?&#8221; Jesus replied. &#8220;There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.&#8221;

18 &#8220;Which ones?&#8221; he inquired.

Jesus replied, &#8220;&#8216;You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,&#8217; and &#8216;love your neighbor as yourself.&#8217;&#8221;

20 &#8220;All these I have kept,&#8221; the young man said. &#8220;What do I still lack?&#8221;

21 Jesus answered, &#8220;If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.&#8221;

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, &#8220;Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.&#8221;

Was Jesus, in the eyes of Mitch Romney, guilty of preaching "envy" and "class warfare?"

 

[Chris]

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

The Rich and the Kingdom of God: Matthew 19:16-24

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Was Jesus, in the eyes of Mitch Romney, guilty of preaching "envy" and "class warfare?"

Yes.

Modern day conservatism is the political codification of selfishness.

 

[jgarden]

As a result of his business career (with Bain Capital), by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million, most of it held in blind trusts. An additional blind trust existed in the name of the Romneys' children and grandchildren that was valued at between $70 and $100 million as of 2007. The couple's net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and was still held in blind trusts.

... Romney spent $110 million during the campaign (2008 presidential primaries), including $45 million of his own money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

The Rich and the Kingdom of God: Matthew 19:23-24

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, &#8220;Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.&#8221;

Obviously Mitch Romney does not think that "The Rich and the Kingdom of God: Matthew 19:23-24" applies to him.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You progressed from "I didn't have MUCH of a choice" all the way to "it was the ONLY job I could take" in one post. LOL 17 year old working at a unionized company that was the ONLY job available?? Your story gets more and more hard to believe the more you spin it. LOL

Your union job was so remote that it was the ONLY job available, you had no transporitation so you couldn't go far, and yet no one in the area or on the job in this remote unionized company knew you well enough to know that you lied about your age?? Sounds too "good" to be true. Did you walk uphill both ways to work too? LOL

I was living in the middle of nowhere and the construction company lot was only a short bike ride from my house.

And they thought I was 18. I needed the money and they offered all the overtime I wanted to work so you see I could not have saved enough for tuition without that job so I did indeed have to take it.

Your story still doesn't make any sense. if it was the ONLY job in the area then parents of students at your highschool possibly even in your class must have worked there as well as possibly some of your neighbors. So how did they not know that you were lying about your age since this was the ONLY job in the area??

You assume I had lived there before i took the job. I didn't. i had already graduated HS and was living with a friend This was not in my home town.

You really do like to assume facts not in evidence don't you.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

First, I just want to say that I come from the same union understanding and view as you. Having experienced first hand how they operate, they also favor their members to contribute dues even while it may be months before they could ever hope to see a dime of earned union employment. It's far from a system that actually looks to its own, as they like to portray to others it is. When you break it down and look to its basic foundation, like every other executive corporation it all boils down to money. How much of it they can extract from those they are "supposed" to represent, yet the improvements in the workforce that became the reason behind forming a union appears to be dwindling and misguided.

With regard to government entitlements (social security, government health care programs, etc) the Federal Government is the most financial disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged organization of any you'll ever hope to find. In short there is no accountability, which is the biggest problem with having the government run it. These programs will find more success being run in the private sector without BIG Government medling and tinkering of the system. The more Government gets involved the worse it becomes. If Social Security were to be privatized, people would find more of a financial return over something they have greater control and influence over. The left want's to demonize stock holders for being greedy, yet at the same time, many would also desire to see a greater financial return for their own personal retirement accounts which (for those who have IRAs, 401Ks, etc.) are based upon how these same stocks perform. This is similar to complaining how this nation has an obesity problem that has a direct overall effect on everyone's Health Care costs, yet they frequent locations like McDonalds, Pizza Hut, soda, or enjoy beer. If you disapprove of something, wouldn't it also make sense that you change their effects and influence in your own lifestyle before you begin to criticize others?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

The tax code SHOULD be changed based on the same flat percentage that everyone pays, no excuses. For those who believe this is somehow unfair, a small Federal Government flat percentage tax would also be applied to the items you buy. This wouldn't matter it you had bought a $36,000 vehicle or a million dollar yacht, you'd each pay the same flat government tax. Then you can do away with the old complicated tax forms of deductions, entitlements, and loop holes. This is an example of how you'd create a less complicated "fair" government tax system. However, receiving from the government THAT which you did not earn, and is "given up" (stolen, whatever term you desire to use here) from the rich is the only system that seems to appeal to the left. One that takes away any incentive to earn for yourself, which in its wake creates a more apathy, uninspired, and slothful society.