PSA: Liberals aren't jealous of rich people

[JSt0rm]

:thumbsup:

I assumed this thread came from some other thread.

 

[mrjminer]

I assumed this thread came from some other thread.

Probably just generalized the idea from a bunch of threads, or presumed it from other people's posts.

I don't see the "they are just jealous" argument very frequently here

 

[trenchfoot]

Jealousy does not end when one is rich enough. Jealousy ends when happiness and contentment begins.

I know quite a few friends and relatives of mine who are well to do, yet they go out of their way to find others to be jealous of.

The moment a person has something that another person can't ever have, like a good honest friend, a loving and faithful spouse, or a special skill or talent, a pair of jaw dropping breasts, or the prettiest or handsomest of facial features, or even an inner peace that allows one to rise above those petty things that others obsess about, there will be those that are jealous of it.

Riches being one thing among millions of others that transcends the boundaries of political stripe and social status. I know a shitload of rich folks that are miserable because they fear losing their wealth more than gaining the freedom that sharing their bounty with those that have little brings.

I guess its just a matter of attitude and perspective.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I thought it was a brain defect?

Or, are you guys just throwing shit and seeing what sticks?

It's most likely the latter.

 

[michal1980]

its not jealousy, its hate.

 

[Jhhnn]

its not jealousy, its hate.

Please. The notion that Liberals are jealous of the wealthy is a standard canard of right wing media-

https://www.google.com/search?q=liberals+jealous+of+the+wealthy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Righties easily overlook the fact that emulation is often an expression of envy, even as they ape the attitudes & so-called "values" of wealth.

 

[IGBT]

superfluous alarmist outrage is a today's democrat party life style and behavioral characteristic.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Well, liberal politicians have jobs that depend upon votes obtained by using government to create a permanent underclass of citizens. They fear that Job Creators will help said underclass become free from dependence upon government, which may cause those persons to stop voting in favor of the liberal politicians. Therefore, the liberal politicians fear that the Job Creators will take away their voter base - textbook jealousy.

Why do you confuse job creators with the rich? It is the demands of the 99% that create jobs the 1% just collect the fat off it.

 

[sm625]

"Job creators" arent rich people. All of the insanely rich people made their money by hiring as few workers as possible and paying them as little as possible. There have been many CEOs throughout history who actually did create decent paying jobs, but by doing so they had to settle for being merely marginally wealthy.

 

[artvscommerce]

They really aren't. I see this thrown around a great deal around here. "Liberals are just jealous of job creators." etc. Except jealously is when you already have something and fear to lose it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jealousy
"Jealousy is an emotion, and the word typically refers to the negative thoughts and feelings of insecurity, fear, and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something of great personal value, particularly in reference to a human connection."

The word you're looking for is envious. When you want something that someone else has.

One wonders if it is in fact the Job Creators that succumb to jealously. One must possess something of great value before one can fear to lose it. :hmm:

did you intentionally slip a simpsons quote in there or was that just a coincidence?

 

[JSt0rm]

superfluous alarmist outrage is a today's democrat party life style and behavioral characteristic.

I love the little factoid in your sig Its so hilariously misguided I'm glad you have it there as a warning to anyone reading your posts.

 

[JSt0rm]

"Job creators" arent rich people. All of the insanely rich people made their money by hiring as few workers as possible and paying them as little as possible. There have been many CEOs throughout history who actually did create decent paying jobs, but by doing so they had to settle for being merely marginally wealthy.

Yeah. They focus on removing jobs but use double speak to get certain segments of the population thinking they are good citizens.

 

[glenn1]

"Job creators" arent rich people. All of the insanely rich people made their money by hiring as few workers as possible and paying them as little as possible. There have been many CEOs throughout history who actually did create decent paying jobs, but by doing so they had to settle for being merely marginally wealthy.

J.K. Rowling is a billionaire and I don't recall her hiring "as few workers as possible" to write the Harry Potter books for her. Those books and the associated movies also created lots of jobs. Likewise there's plenty of other examples of billionaires making their secretaries and janitors rich while also creating the products that millions or billions of consumers use. And then in lots of examples like Bill Gates give away billions for philanthropic causes.

Maybe you should update your viewpoint of the rich away from 19th century fixations with robber barons and stop believing that this represents an accurate picture of the wealthy:

 

[BurnItDwn]

you are confused OP.

Job creaters = people who earn money and spend it.

middle class people earn sizable money, and spend most of it. This grows the economy.


buying out smaller companies and firing middle class people as consolidation is the opposite of job creation.

 

[glenn1]

you are confused OP.

Job creaters = people who earn money and spend it.

middle class people earn sizable money, and spend most of it. This grows the economy.


buying out smaller companies and firing middle class people as consolidation is the opposite of job creation.

Employment for employment sake shouldn't be our goal if it's not productive work that's creating net economic value - patent trolls are a good example. Your example of a corporate buyout is simplistic because there's lots of factors at work beyond simple headcount.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Employment for employment sake shouldn't be our goal if it's not productive work that's creating net economic value - patent trolls are a good example. Your example of a corporate buyout is simplistic because there's lots of factors at work beyond simple headcount.

I agree, I just dont like the dishonesty of "job creaters" being attributed to people who work hard to reduce employment and who often fight against wage growth.

 

[Jhhnn]

J.K. Rowling is a billionaire and I don't recall her hiring "as few workers as possible" to write the Harry Potter books for her. Those books and the associated movies also created lots of jobs. Likewise there's plenty of other examples of billionaires making their secretaries and janitors rich while also creating the products that millions or billions of consumers use. And then in lots of examples like Bill Gates give away billions for philanthropic causes.

Maybe you should update your viewpoint of the rich away from 19th century fixations with robber barons and stop believing that this represents an accurate picture of the wealthy:

Gawd. Rowling never claimed to be a job creator & she sure as hell doesn't finance right wing think tanks of propaganda, certainly not in this country.

It's not like she's been poisoning political discourse for 40 years.

Even with charitable giving, the fortunes of America's most wealthy have grown by leaps & bounds over that time frame. As Bernie Sanders pointed out

Sanders rattled off a string of statistics, noting that even as the country has recovered from the economic meltdown and bailouts of 2008 and 2009, 99 percent of new income is going to the richest 1 percent. The 14 wealthiest individuals in the U.S. gained $157 billion for themselves, he said, "which is more wealth than is owned by the bottom 130 million Americans."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/bernie-sanders-too-big-to-fail_n_7225192.html

But keep on shilling for the rich who've been waging successful top down class warfare for decades. Project the trends of the last 30 years another 30 years into the future, tell us that doesn't look like a third world distribution pattern.

 

[Jhhnn]

Employment for employment sake shouldn't be our goal if it's not productive work that's creating net economic value - patent trolls are a good example. Your example of a corporate buyout is simplistic because there's lots of factors at work beyond simple headcount.

Being a patent troll isn't something that can be defined as work.

If the Job Creators! believed that they needed more economic output they'd create more jobs, but they obviously don't. But we have this "work for a living" model for the 99% that has broken down, largely as a result of greed at the top. If the current labor glut were translated into goods & services then there would be a glut of that & prices would fall, killing profit.

Righties, of course, are extremely jealous of anybody getting "something for nothing" but they don't want the govt to make work, either, not even to do the things that private enterprise finds unattractive from a profit perspective.

Middle class Righties are victims to Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[glenn1]

double post

 

[glenn1]

Gawd. Rowling never claimed to be a job creator & she sure as hell doesn't finance right wing think tanks of propaganda, certainly not in this country.

It's not like she's been poisoning political discourse for 40 years.

Even with charitable giving, the fortunes of America's most wealthy have grown by leaps & bounds over that time frame. As Bernie Sanders pointed out

Sanders rattled off a string of statistics, noting that even as the country has recovered from the economic meltdown and bailouts of 2008 and 2009, 99 percent of new income is going to the richest 1 percent. The 14 wealthiest individuals in the U.S. gained $157 billion for themselves, he said, "which is more wealth than is owned by the bottom 130 million Americans."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/bernie-sanders-too-big-to-fail_n_7225192.html

But keep on shilling for the rich who've been waging successful top down class warfare for decades. Project the trends of the last 30 years another 30 years into the future, tell us that doesn't look like a third world distribution pattern.

If I offered you a 48% raise, would you turn it down just because you found out your CEO got a bigger raise? And what percentage of their income have the poor been putting into capital investment like the rich have for the last few decades? Seems like that explains some of the divergence you cry about. And it's not like the poor and middle class haven't been enjoying the consumer goods they've been spending increasing amounts of their income on like cell phones, internet, houses which have doubled or tripled in square footage over the last few decades - shall I go on?

 

[Victorian Gray]

its not jealousy, its hate.

You hate rich people? Why?

 

[Jhhnn]

If I offered you a 48% raise, would you turn it down just because you found out your CEO got a bigger raise? And what percentage of their income have the poor been putting into capital investment like the rich have for the last few decades? Seems like that explains some of the divergence you cry about. And it's not like the poor and middle class haven't been enjoying the consumer goods they've been spending increasing amounts of their income on like cell phones, internet, houses which have doubled or tripled in square footage over the last few decades - shall I go on?

Deflect & obfuscate often? Applying middle class concepts of money to the ultra wealthy has no basis in reality. That's because even greater wealth affects their lifestyles & security not at all. More money is only useful for ego satisfaction & acquisition of power. The latter translates into political corruption. Examples abound, like Repubs insistence on building the Keystone XL pipeline. Why do they want it? Because they're paid to want it, like everything else they advocate. End the Estate Tax? Same story. Maintenance of the double Irish with a Dutch sandwich tax dodge? You guessed it.

As history reveals over & over, too much concentration of wealth invokes economic instability w/ severe consequences for the non-Rich. That's particularly true as we reach for plutocracy where the big players can break the world economy for sport & never suffer any more than paper losses.

 

[glenn1]

Deflect & obfuscate often? Applying middle class concepts of money to the ultra wealthy has no basis in reality. That's because even greater wealth affects their lifestyles & security not at all. More money is only useful for ego satisfaction & acquisition of power. The latter translates into political corruption. Examples abound, like Repubs insistence on building the Keystone XL pipeline. Why do they want it? Because they're paid to want it, like everything else they advocate. End the Estate Tax? Same story. Maintenance of the double Irish with a Dutch sandwich tax dodge? You guessed it.

As history reveals over & over, too much concentration of wealth invokes economic instability w/ severe consequences for the non-Rich. That's particularly true as we reach for plutocracy where the big players can break the world economy for sport & never suffer any more than paper losses.

You might want to get a new line of argument since the "looming catastrophe" angle isn't working; whether it's for income distribution, climate change, or anything else.

 

[Jhhnn]

You might want to get a new line of argument since the "looming catastrophe" angle isn't working; whether it's for income distribution, climate change, or anything else.

And you might try addressing the issues rather than dodging. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it's not there. According to all the right wing pundits at the time (your sources, obviously) there was no looming catastrophe in the housing bubble, either.

 

[glenn1]

And you might try addressing the issues rather than dodging. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it's not there. According to all the right wing pundits at the time (your sources, obviously) there was no looming catastrophe in the housing bubble, either.

You've done nothing to even support your premise, much less provide an argument for why I should accept it. You're simply continuing to repeat your own beliefs as if they're self-evident when they're anything but.

Heck, for the fun of it let's try it from the other end. Try "addressing the issue" that when incomes rise across the board we're all better off even if they don't rise at the same rate. Likewise just because you don't see that doesn't mean it's not there.