HaricotVert says...

All right, I'll say it. Romney's right. I am envious of millionaires. I would venture to say that most of my peers are "jealous" too... but for one reason, and one reason only:

If I had that much wealth (or a sufficient salary to reach that much in, say, 5 years of full-time work), I could rest a LOT easier and lead a far more relaxed life. I wouldn't have to worry about mortgage payments. I wouldn't have to worry about a medical emergency. I wouldn't have to worry about putting food on the table. I wouldn't have to worry about a child's college education. I wouldn't have to worry about retirement. Although not every one of those points apply to me (yet), there exist plenty of lower- and middle-income families for which all of those and more do.

That's it. There's nothing else. There were 3.1 million millionaires in the US at last count and obviously I don't and can't know all of them personally. It is patently illogical for me to begrudge and envy all of them in any way other than the element of financial security. I don't envy their boat; I don't enjoy that kind of recreation or the upkeep associated with it. I don't envy their second house; I only need one. I don't need a 60" plasma TV (or any TV at all for that matter, why, I have Videosift! <3). I don't need a Ferrari; the speed limit is 65 everywhere. And so on. It bears mentioning that most millionaires live very frugal lives themselves, anyhow.

What I do need are the basic essentials for living, enough that I can rest easy at night. And the bigger the safety net, the more comfortable I am.

Romney seems to think this envy is on the level of revolution and "class warfare." No. I don't give a single fuck about what millionaires do with their money. The problem is this: if you raise taxes 5% on the middle and lower classes, that could mean the difference between rice and beans vs. 3 square meals a day. Raise taxes 5% on the wealthy and the difference is keeping their BMW and Benz for 1 more year as opposed to trading up to the latest and greatest model.

TL;DR - Romney's right, but for the wrong reasons.

lantern53 says...

There is only one entity 'distributing' wealth, and that entity is the US government. They tax the producers in this country, then they pay off unions, reward companies like Solyndra, and buy votes from welfare recipients.

No one else is 'distributing' income.

00Scud00 says...

>> ^HaricotVert:

It bears mentioning that most millionaires live very frugal lives themselves, anyhow.

I don't suppose you can cite any credible sources for that statement, and while we're at it, what's your definition of "frugal"?

Porksandwich says...

So if I wonder why they are dumping toxic waste in the river it's envy?

Is it also envy when I wonder why they keep reducing their workforce but continue to make more profits and question what they've done to allow that to happen?

Was it envy when people were wondering where their returns were with Madoff?

So it's wrong to wonder how these people are functioning when it all signs point to them doing something that's long term counter productive or illegal?

This is basically how they catch drug dealers, looking at people who have money that have no obvious reason to explain how they continue to earn it.

I know it'd make life a lot simpler if I could just do whatever the hell I wanted and could tell people to fuck off (or stop being envious) when they were looking into my unlawful or dangerous (physically, economically, etc) behaviors.

criticalthud says...

I sure don't envy gluttony. I don't envy people who worship the dollar, and who value profit over humanity.
I don't envy assholes.
But I'll fight for fair.

renatojj says...

He's just talking about Obama's socialist rhetoric, which appeals to the masses mostly on the basis of envy. I do agree with the interviewer though, that there is room for righteous indignation.

HaricotVert says...

I should have clarified. The absolute definition of "millionaire" would describe anyone whose net worth is greater than $999,999.99. Many people who have barely over the $1,000,000 threshold lead rather reasonable lives, as in they don't drive Lamborghinis or own private islands or have yachts.

The frugality of millionaires (and multi-millionaires) is explored and discussed in the book The Millionaire Next Door (first chapter available here), in which the authors Stanley and Danko collected data from a sample of 1100 millionaires and multi-millionaires. They apparently found common threads of "wealth accumulation" that allows people with strong salaries to put themselves over that million-dollar threshold over the course of years of saving and frugal living.

The short of it being that the vast majority of modest millionaires are not amoral hedge fund managers who lord his or her wealth over the hoi polloi. They're fastidious, industrious workers who have full-time jobs like me, although they typically get paid more (doctors, lawyers, etc.), have families and homes, and save a lot.

>> ^00Scud00:

>> ^HaricotVert:
It bears mentioning that most millionaires live very frugal lives themselves, anyhow.

I don't suppose you can cite any credible sources for that statement, and while we're at it, what's your definition of "frugal"?

quantumushroom says...

The people paying NO income taxes are as much or more a burden on society than the wealthy the left keeps lying about not paying their "fair share". Taxwise, the wealthy aka investors aka job creators are already put through the ringer, and frankly, so is the middle class.

No one is suggesting the poor pay crippling taxes, but as His Earness would say, shouldn't they put some "skin in the game"?

cosmovitelli says...

>> ^HaricotVert:

I should have clarified. The absolute definition of "millionaire" would describe anyone whose net worth is greater than $999,999.99. Many people who have barely over the $1,000,000 threshold lead rather reasonable lives, as in they don't drive Lamborghinis or own private islands or have yachts.


Surely a million doesn't get you into the 1%? Maybe in 1990.. At a guess I'd say you needed at least $5 million to qualify, no? And probably invested in a dozen properties so the 'envious' can pay off your mortgages..

Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears! Well spotted, again. Now let adults talk.

MayaBaba says...

Class! CLASS! Does this man actually think that being rich gives you class?
Being a millionaire or a billionaire means you have money; lots of money.
It in no way, does being a millionaire/billionaire mean you have class.

Some rich folk do have class. But so do lots of poor folk.
Class is achieved in a wholly different way!

Definition ; poor --> Not Rich.

I'll leave it to him to do some research and discover what Class means.

HaricotVert says...

"Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income." -Washington Post

In the video, Romney and the interviewer are specifically using the term "millionaires," so I have to take their exchange at face value as meaning anyone with a net worth of at least 1 million dollars. They could have a salary of $1 for all I know, but somewhere they have assets and cash available to them summing to a million dollars.

I'd be envious of an income of $500,000 all the same, since I could become a millionaire in under 3 years by just continuing to live as I do now.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^HaricotVert:
I should have clarified. The absolute definition of "millionaire" would describe anyone whose net worth is greater than $999,999.99. Many people who have barely over the $1,000,000 threshold lead rather reasonable lives, as in they don't drive Lamborghinis or own private islands or have yachts.

Surely a million doesn't get you into the 1%? Maybe in 1990.. At a guess I'd say you needed at least $5 million to qualify, no? And probably invested in a dozen properties so the 'envious' can pay off your mortgages..
Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears! Well spotted, again. Now let adults talk.

quantumushroom says...

Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears!

Liberals have only two responses to every problem: Cry "Racism!" and Raise Taxes. I'm not making this up, it's proven here all the time. This sift is about the latter and you've proven the point with the former.

But since you want to bring race into it, the only reason this marxist goofus has gotten away with so much failure is the cowards who are supposed to be standing up to his baloney won't because he's Black.

VoodooV says...

Most people don't even want to be millionaires, they just want to pay their bills, they just want to NOT go bankrupt if they have a major illness.

I wouldn't want to be a millionaire. I don't want to constantly worry about whether or not my friends are just trying to mooch off me or if that girl who appears to like me is a gold digger or not.

If it's envy to see that the millionaire doesn't have to worry about education expenses If it's envy to see a millionaire who gets sick not have to worry about their future because they can afford the medical bills. If it's envy to see a millionaire get in a car wreck that's not his fault and afford the repair bill...

...then fine, you can call it envy. They make it sound like the 99 percent is just envious of the tasteless bling they can afford or the ugly McMansions or the useless shit they buy just because they can and that's where they're dead wrong. It's not envy over the luxuries, it's envy that they don't have to worry about the NECESSITIES.

Porksandwich says...

It's really not envy. It's people tired of having a small portion of people suck up more and more wealth each year while they themselves can't even get a cost of living raise yearly.

It's been shown time and time again, on the whole the majority of people make less now than they did 20 years ago because they haven't gotten cost of living increases.

They marginalize your job by whatever means they can, and glorify for their positions so much so that not only does their salary not compensate them for DOING THEIR JOB but they also need yearly bonuses that exceed your 10 year income.

And then when times are tough, they continue to take those bonuses and salaries and cut out the jobs that haven't gotten a wage increase in years maybe even decades. Certainly not enough to keep up with inflation 99/100 times.

It's a silly way to operate, but they are backed by both politicians and the major money holders in the nation to enforce this weird dichotomy we have. Where even though they will tell you your job is worthless to the company...it never completely disappears...they just move it as close to poverty as they can and still get someone "satisfactory" in the position. Then move onto the next position and repeat it. After they've made their rounds, then they have to offshore as much as possible to continue the downward spiral that allows them to bring in higher and higher profits and pay out increasing bonuses.

And soon you'll see they have to outsource and offshore to other countries (from the ones they are in now) because people eventually figure out that it's fucking nuts to let these guys put a stranglehold on them like they are. Slowly tightening and tightening until it becomes more sustainable to not work versus the cost of clothing, commute, extended hours, health detriment, etc.

If they didn't have everything locked up for 50-100 years via patents and monopolistic deals, we could have small businesses spring up in our country to compete that might actually force them to pay competitive wages if they want to keep customers by providing quality service and quick repairs. But they continue to run "satisfactory"...and satisfactory standards get lowered each year. People get paid less, less people work there.....they pull in more money per employee by providing less service. And never grow or maintain their operations to stay modern (look specifically at cell phones and ISPs for this), but charge increasingly more each year for less service.

How can you envy that kind of behavior? The money they gain is coming from directly fucking over their employees and customers. The "more successful" ones are just better (more ruthless) at fucking people over.

Neither party wants this kind of behavior to end, that's why none of them actually bring all this bullshit to the forefront and call out specific businesses (especially the TOO BIG outfits) for their behavior. FCC blocking AT&T + T-Mobile merger is what they exist to do, and they are getting slapped on the back for doing it after months and months of information gathering on it, when the layperson on the street could tell you one less provider equals more being fucked as a consumer like they aren't getting fucked enough as is.

I wish they would start revoking the charters of corporations for negligence and malfeasance. They are like parasites feeding on the population at this point, and not mutualists that are good for the human body and in turn the population. And they are parasitic in more than one way, services rendered with their rising costs, and workforce shrinkage with it's decreasing wages and total amount of jobs.

Ryjkyj says...

In most cases, the racism is incidental. Race has nothing to do with your argument that the "job creators" are being taxed to death and their wealth is being given to people who don't deserve it, and yet you still insist on throwing it in there. I don't judge people for being racist, everyone has issues, some more frustrating then others. But when you focus on things like the "skin in the game" phrase, whatever you're implying (even if it's legitimate) most people are only going to ignore you. (except racists that is)

Unfortunately, when you include things like that, it distracts people from your main point, which is the bullshit mentioned above about how the job creators are being ruined by the government.

It's crap.

Time and again the myth has been proven wrong. And on top of that, there are huge companies here in America that pay absolutely no taxes at all. Corporations that would be providing in some cases billions of dollars are given a free ticket because they own a few lobbyists. Meanwhile, anyone who has ever worked for any corporation can clearly see that the main principal behind corporate success is the elimination of jobs wherever possible. Sure every once in a while a new position is created. Usually it's for the sole purpose of eliminating others. These days it's practically the first rule of business.
>> ^quantumushroom:

Btw well done QM he's black and has big ears!
Liberals have only two responses to every problem: Cry "Racism!" and Raise Taxes. I'm not making this up, it's proven here all the time. This sift is about the latter and you've proven the point with the former.
But since you want to bring race into it, the only reason this marxist goofus has gotten away with so much failure is the cowards who are supposed to be standing up to his baloney won't because he's Black.

quantumushroom says...

In most cases, the racism is incidental. Race has nothing to do with your argument that the "job creators" are being taxed to death and their wealth is being given to people who don't deserve it, and yet you still insist on throwing it in there. I don't judge people for being racist, everyone has issues, some more frustrating then others. But when you focus on things like the "skin in the game" phrase, whatever you're implying (even if it's legitimate) most people are only going to ignore you. (except racists that is)

I suppose I can't expect everyone to know everything His Earness says, I sure don't.

RE: "Skin in the game" But it would be nice if SOMEONE knew OBAMA SAID IT.


Unfortunately, when you include things like that, it distracts people from your main point, which is the bullshit mentioned above about how the job creators are being ruined by the government.


The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election. If the Supreme Doofs rule this piece of crap commiecare NO ONE wanted "Constitutional" (P.S., it isn't) expect another economic nosedive.

Time and again the myth has been proven wrong. And on top of that, there are huge companies here in America that pay absolutely no taxes at all.


It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

If it's a "myth", as the left proclaims, then who ARE the job creators? Certainly not government, as a government job is a tax drain. Small businesses, while making up the highest percentage of businesses, can only hire so many employees, and if obamacare passes, you can expect they'll be hiring even fewer.


Corporations that would be providing in some cases billions of dollars are given a free ticket because they own a few lobbyists. Meanwhile, anyone who has ever worked for any corporation can clearly see that the main principal behind corporate success is the elimination of jobs wherever possible. Sure every once in a while a new position is created. Usually it's for the sole purpose of eliminating others. These days it's practically the first rule of business.

If liberals, who make up just over half the population, really feel this way about corporations, then why don't they do something on their own?

I don't know if Jim Sinegal, the CEO of Costco, is a liberal, but Costco pays an almost-living wage to start and he's stated his employees come first over both rapid growth and the whims of stockholders. When Ben and Jerry ran their company, they "used to have a policy that no employee's rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees". I got no problem with that, and obviously it was profitable.

Don't wait for government to make everything "fair". You'll be too poor to notice when it happens.

NetRunner says...

@Ryjkyj, to defend QM a bit, "skin in the game" is an idiom that roughly translates into "has some personal stake in the outcome". It's not about race, it's about economic philosophy.

That is at the core of what's supposed to make capitalism superior to communism or socialism -- people have something personally at risk if they don't manage their resources well, and could stand to reap some personal gain if they do.

This is why conservatives are only one hair short of saying we should torture people who lose their job -- it'd give them even more skin in the game.

NetRunner says...

>> ^quantumushroom:

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election.


For the sake of argument, let's say your basic point is right and uncertainty about government is the only reason that $2 trillion is "parked," and the people who actually control what's done with that money bear zero responsibility for the damage their choices are wreaking on the economy.

Even if I, for the sake of argument only, stipulate all that as true, why does only Obama bear responsibility for that uncertainty? Using your own logic, if Republicans put the well-being of the country before their own ambition, they would restore certainty by a) dropping their suit against the ACA, and b) letting Obama run unopposed in the 2012 election.

Certainly that would restore "certainty" to the markets.

Now, if what you really meant was that the so-called "job creators" are intentionally fucking over the economy in order to a) put pressure on the SCOTUS to rule against the ACA, and b) try to get a Republican into the White House, why is Obama the villain in your story? Clearly if that's the case, then these people formerly known as job creators are actually terrorists who deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
>> ^quantumushroom:
It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.


Right, if it weren't for the government, corporations would be free to collect their own taxes from people, and make their own laws directly without any need to go through the pretense of democratic process.

You know, Utopia!

Again, even if I accept your basic premise, your logic is still flawed. If I bribe a bank security guard to look the other way while I rob his bank, the right response to that is to say "that bank should be more careful about who it hires" not "the entire practice of banking should be abolished."

Same for you and government -- if you don't like corporations buying influence in our government, you should be trying to find a way to limit their opportunities to do so (like campaign finance reform), or voting for people who are a lot less cozy with business than the people you like to vote for.

As for "make government smaller," that's no solution. All that does is create a power vacuum, one corporations step in to fill themselves. It doesn't level the playing field, it tilts it even more towards the people who already run things now.

If you're interested in getting out from under the thumb of people with too much power, you need to focus your sights on trying to reduce income and wealth disparity, and help try to return us to a more egalitarian society, rather than going out and trying to help the rich and powerful fuck us all over.

Ryjkyj says...

>> ^NetRunner:

@Ryjkyj, to defend QM a bit, "skin in the game" is an idiom that roughly translates into "has some personal stake in the outcome". It's not about race, it's about economic philosophy.


Oh yeah, I get it. I'm not an idiot.

All I'm saying is that Obama has said a lot of things, but it's just like QM to focus on a colloquialism that denotes racial, and by association, economic status. That's QM's subtle form of labeling that he uses to imply a lack of education and thus, inferiority. He does it so often, that even I can't really tell anymore when he's doing it intentionally or by accident.

Calling him a racist is beside the point. Except when he's complaining about why people don't listen to him.

The really hilarious part is that he tries to label a professor of constitutional law as an idiot and simultaneously a communist political mastermind.

NetRunner says...

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Oh yeah, I get it. I'm not an idiot.


I didn't think you were an idiot, I just thought maybe you were unfamiliar with the idiom, based on your responses.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
All I'm saying is that Obama has said a lot of things, but it's just like QM to focus on a colloquialism that denotes racial, and by association, economic status. That's QM's subtle form of labeling that he uses to imply a lack of education and thus, inferiority. He does it so often, that even I can't really tell anymore when he's doing it intentionally or by accident.
Calling him a racist is beside the point. Except when he's complaining about why people don't listen to him.
The really hilarious part is that he tries to label a professor of constitutional law as an idiot and simultaneously a communist political mastermind.


Yeah, I find these days that the gap between what people on the right say and reality is so wide it's often hard to build a bridge between what they said and the truth.

I don't really think that's an accident, either.

cosmovitelli says...

>> ^HaricotVert:

"Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income."


..Well then this 1% thing is bullshit.

The difference between $500k and $250m (romney) is more than 400 times bigger than between a working man's $40k and this so-called 'millionare'.

And of course Romney is small fry begging for the gaudiness of public office compared to the big boys. (And I dont mean Gates & Buffet and 'new money').

Guess it's more like 0.1%. or 0.01% or 0.001%.. Hey we're talking about 30 guys here! We need a list of names!!

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon