Romney: Income inequality is just "envy"

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

How's that any different from those who make the "choice" to start a business and take the necessary risks through personal investment, than work for someone else at $15 an hour? Seems the individuals "choose" the lifestyle they want to attain for themselves. Why ask the government to do something that you have the free "choice" to make for yourself? You don't like how the company you work for does business, quit and make the "choice" to start one the way you feel it ought to be run. Sounds like some would rather blame the rich because they are not happy with the choices they made for themselves.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Nice spin but you made a claim about how you were "forced" to join a union in order to get a job and yet you CHOSE to take that job. You were not forced to take the job and if you didn't know that it was a union workplace then your ignorance is no ones fault but your own.

Your rhetoric about unions is nothing but the typical line of right wing anti union talking point bs but then I have come to expect that from those on the right.

Choosing a job doesn't mean both parties voluntarily agreed to the terms imposed by a gang of thugs. The employer didn't agree voluntarily. The union forces the employer to accept its terms at gun point. It's the same as if some armed crooks entered a bank and forced the clerks to hand out money to anyone who entered the lobby at gunpoint. Great for a lucky few, but not good for the bank or its depositors.

That's your conception of "voluntary." It's the kind of "choice" a mugger offers you: your money or your life.

More moronic hyperbole from you. Is that all that you have to offer?? You be sure to let me know when you want to discuss this like an adult, then we can talk. until then keep your childish inane and baseless rantings to yourself. gun point?? LOL

What he fails to mention is that unions don't really favor having a little "choice and competition", so they do what is called Salting. This is where a union employee fakes a resume and infiltrates the nonunion company. This is done, so they can "keep tabs" on their rival businesses, while trying to convince enough workers of the benefits a union can bring without giving them the entire picture of how a union is run. If enough of them are convinced, after secretly recieving only one side of the argument and without the owner's chance to divulge other informative facts, they can force the company to assimulate into the union no matter if the owner desires to or not. Unions never favors competition. Which is also why they put SO MUCH funding (through union dues) into lobbying government into promoting policies that are anti-business, and favor more union power influence over private business owners. Owners who believe in allowing the FREE MARKET to dictate and bring competitive pricing, along with the "choice" of quality satisfaction, to fight for the consumer's business.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?"

Was Jesus in favor of placing his belief's and views on government, or was he more interested in changing the hearts and minds of the individual? Care to show me what specific Biblical passage spoke of Jesus approaching the Roman government and expected THEM to change?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

I'm not angry with the rich, not even those who never labored to obtain their wealth. I'm angry with those who use their wealth for power and control over our government and by extension of our citizens.

I'm disappointed and perplexed by the four justices and the Chief Justice who voted to move our nation further down the road to a Plutocracy (CU v. FEC).

I'm upset over the members of Congress whose vote can be purchased and whose number one focus is on their own election.

I'm shocked that people like Avatar who purport to be Christian would support the Republican Party, a party whose behavior over the past couple of decades would lead one to believe that they have rejected the teachings of Jesus.

 

[editec]

Envy?

Well I guess that's one word for what they're feeling.

Just pray to GOD they continue to just envy the fat cats instead of getting pissed at them.

Because if this trend of wealth inequity continues to grow as it has in the last 40 years, the people are going to stop being envious and start being PROACTIVE.

 

[Intense]

God, and to think this guy is their best bet...

What part of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" don't you grasp Einstein? Envy, Jealousy, are right up there with Greed. Try this.....

Eat your own bread and be satisfied with it. Let's start there and go with "Personal Responsibility" for $10. Do you want to buy a Vowel?

 

[California Girl]

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

I'm not angry with the rich, not even those who never labored to obtain their wealth. I'm angry with those who use their wealth for power and control over our government and by extension of our citizens.

I'm disappointed and perplexed by the four justices and the Chief Justice who voted to move our nation further down the road to a Plutocracy (CU v. FEC).

I'm upset over the members of Congress whose vote can be purchased and whose number one focus is on their own election.

I'm shocked that people like Avatar who purport to be Christian would support the Republican Party, a party whose behavior over the past couple of decades would lead one to believe that they have rejected the teachings of Jesus.

My problem with what you say is that it applies equally to the Democrats. And you refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

I'm not angry with the rich, not even those who never labored to obtain their wealth. I'm angry with those who use their wealth for power and control over our government and by extension of our citizens.

You're angry at the wrong people. You should be angry at the fucking politicians who pass laws that make it legal for them to take bribes from big business.

 

[Intense]

Well let's be honest... we do envy the wealthy.

-We envy the ability of the wealthy to convince 50% of the population to vote against their own interests.

-We envy the ability of the wealthy to run the country into the ground, blame the government...then ask the same government for help.

-We envy the ability of the wealthy to demand the government provide corporate protections, subsidies and welfare, while simultaneously denouncing "dependency" on Government.

-We envy the ability of the wealthy to use their wealth to buy US public policy and law.

So you want to overhaul the Tax code..... Good Idea.... I wonder why myself or others never thought of that.

Are you capable of Impartial Thought? Can you personally come up with an idea that is fair to all without pinning one Mob against another? Do you seek Justice First, or Personal Advantage? Hint, What is Imposed on Any One, should be Imposed on All.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

So what. They don't say that he somehow doesn't deserve to keep his money.

 

[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.

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.

It was a summer job and I didn't get benefits as I was only going to be there for a few months

And as I said before there was no other job I could take that would allow me to work 60 or 70 hours a week in the area but that one.

So my choice was to not work and not go to school or to work be forced to pay union dues and then go to school.

As I said not much of a choice.

 

[Trajan]

Envy?

Well I guess that's one word for what they're feeling.

Just pray to GOD they continue to just envy the fat cats instead of getting pissed at them.

Because if this trend of wealth inequity continues to grow as it has in the last 40 years, the people are going to stop being envious and start being PROACTIVE.

you do know that that 'distribution' has not fundamentally changed since the industrial age began...right?

 

[Big Fitz]

Envy?

Well I guess that's one word for what they're feeling.

Just pray to GOD they continue to just envy the fat cats instead of getting pissed at them.

Because if this trend of wealth inequity continues to grow as it has in the last 40 years, the people are going to stop being envious and start being PROACTIVE.

you do know that that 'distribution' has not fundamentally changed since the industrial age began...right?

If records went back to Adam and Eve, they'd blame God.

 

[Chris]

Romney feels your pain....

 

[Intense]

Romney feels your pain....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLTFJ2DcG0o]Vodka martini, shaken, not stirred - YouTube[/ame]
Vodka martini, shaken, not stirred

 

[drsmith1072]

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.



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.

really?? Care to explain how and who is being forced and held at gun point or having their legs broken??

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?

But I thought unions were the ones that did things at gun point and forced their way in by breaking peoples legs. Funny how your argument seems to be shifting as youy try to CYA over your moronic and baseless claims.

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!"

Only a complete LIAR like you would make claims about the unions and the try to flip his argument to equating the government using force to enforce LAWS to your dishonest claims that the unions force their way in at gunpoint and threats of braking legs.

Face it, your idiocy took your argument places the facts don't go and now you are trying to CYA instead of manning up and admitting that you were full of shite.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

Even if that aspect is true your whole story still does not make sense that it was the ONLY job in existence in that area. Furthermore what kind of moron moves to an area with only ONE job available only to bitch and moan about the choice that he left himself with.

In the end you still made the choice and that is no ones fault but your own.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

I disagree, my experience with unions has always been favorable as has my family's experiences. When my parents needed the unions to help them deal with any issue they had they got the help they needed. Both of my parents were union members for over 30 years and never had any issues like the ones you describe.

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?

There in lies the problem with the republican party. They spend their lives trying to become part of a system they say is "disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged" and then if they actually get in they spend their careers in a self fulfilling prophecy to make government "disorganized, wastefull, and mismanaged"

One example is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 which requires the postal service to wholly pre-fund its retirement health package or to cover the health care costs of future retirees, in advance, at 100%. The right loves to use the post office as one of it's prime examples of government inefficiecy but the actions of the right are what put it in it's current predicament.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

I have been told that talking about what is "fair" considered class warfare so are you engaging in class warfare??
The sad fact is that the usual argument from the right is that the "wealthy" already pay "MORE" but they would pay "MORE" even at a flat tax. So that really doesn't fix that problem or fit one of the main arguments from the right.

Although it's funny how you didn't really address anything that I said but that is to be expected.

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

How's that any different from those who make the "choice" to start a business and take the necessary risks through personal investment, than work for someone else at $15 an hour? Seems the individuals "choose" the lifestyle they want to attain for themselves. Why ask the government to do something that you have the free "choice" to make for yourself? You don't like how the company you work for does business, quit and make the "choice" to start one the way you feel it ought to be run. Sounds like some would rather blame the rich because they are not happy with the choices they made for themselves.

Are you talking to me? It seems to me that you are talking to skull but you responded to my post. It would help if what you posted actually pertained to content of the post that you are responding to. Thank you.