Why do Republicans lobby on behalf of people who live like royalty?

Maybe so. But to say that one party can be "the lesser of two evils" is simply not true.
There can be no lesser of two evils except in perception.

 

Because they are treated unfairly, even though most of them accept as just the way things are.
The perception that highly successful people have not earned what they have is one that is necessary to disqualify their accomplishment as a standard so that you do not have to compare yourself to it. IF that person stole their success from you- they have made you a poor victim, and they are cheating bastards. Lots of people are quite comfortable telling themselves that. Thus, though the rich pay most of the nations bills and the poor and working class draw most of the benefits, those classes of people will insult the people doing the most, blame them for not doing more for them- and never think for a moment they owe some gratitude to people that make things work. The top 10% of the taxpayers contribute 70% of the total taxes. Now they don't get any more of the things those taxes pay for, they just pay more. Fair?

As an employee- you have workman's compensation. You have unemployment insurance. You have your social security payments matched by your employer. You leave work, and don't really care if the company did well or not. The employer on the other hand does not have any benefits provided by law. He is required to work free for the governments as a tax collector- but will be fined and punished for being late or making a mistake. He is also responsible for your mistakes. An employee makes an error that creates a liability for the company- he's not responsible; the company is. I once had a job foreman tell me that if a job did well, he should get a bonus because he made me money. When I asked him about the job that just lost $10K due to his mistake, he said that losses were always due to management error. Business owners are the last to get paid- everyone else come first, IF there is anything left, you have an income. If not, you worked free all year- and I have done just that a couple times.

I encourage anyone convinced that the wealthy don't earn their money to go out there and help themselves to that free green. Just hock everything you own, open a business, then sit back and let the cash roll in.

IF such success were easy to accomplish, everyone would be doing it. The fact is that it requires not only hard work, but a very high level of dedication, AND a number of characteristics most people can't bring to the table, or at least, won't.

You succeed when you quit blaming others for what you don't have, and change yourself.

 

The rich person.

There is limited capital to fund various projects (which comes from rich people), but there is an unlimited supply of low skilled laborers ( which is comprised of poor people) . For anyone that has even a cursory understanding of supply and demand, this answer is blatalntly obvious.

 

So in your opinion the rich man is more important...

Okay... lets look out a different window this time.
Lets suppose your rich pal lost all his money. He has nothing. Not a pot to piss in.
Is he still more important than anyone else? He's the same man he was before.
Except now he's poor.
So is it only money that makes one man more important than another??
Ins't that what being a Republican these days is really all about??

 

Your economic value is a separate entity from your intrinsic value as a human being. If you believe in that sort of thing. If not, it’s all irrelevant anyway and we should all just look out for #1.

Most of this confusion comes from people wanting it both ways. They want the benefit of ethics and morality without the responsibility that goes along with them.

 

In an economic sense yes. Money is a simple form of economic valuation. So obviously it is "only money".

I have a question though. Most of the liberals here seem to completely revile Walmart. Yet Walmart is a classic "rags to riches" American success story. The founder of the company Sam Walton certainly was not rich. And its pretty well known that he worked like a dog for decades to make Walmart the success it is.

Yet Walmart from what I've seen at this forum is roundly loathed and reviled. I thought liberals were supposed to love the "little guy that made it big"?

 

Well, if you really are going to parse this down to the finest detail, you need to clarify what you mean by "more important". Based on the context of when you asked the question, I took that term to mean more important in regards to getting a business up and running. In order to get a business up and running, the person with the capital is FAR more important. For anyone willing to invest sufficient capital, there is a virtually endless supply of labor willing to do whatever work is needed ( at the market price of course). On the other side of the coin, there is not a limitless supply of cash willing to be invested in a particular venture. By virtue of supply and demand alone, obviously the most important component is the investment of cash.

If you want to take this in another direction and say once a person has lost all of their money, they are no longer relevant to the equation in any manner, shape, or form, because they are then neither a worker, OR an investor. If they posess a particularly valuable knowledge base, they may have some level of high value, but unless that has been specified, it is safe to say they are irrelevant.

If you are talking in another context and not specifically about importance of getting a business up and running, then of course the rich man is no more important than a poor man. Every man has inherent value as a human being, and nobody is claiming otherwise. Therefore, to answer your question, no, it is NOT only money that gives a man more inherent value as a man, it is money that makes a man more important in getting a business up and running.

 

Lol
Yes just like "Individual-1" did.
Good one. Thanks

 

Wooo! More lie narratives for me to debunk... yet again.

FACT: The LIE narrative on CEO pay is reached by only considering the pay of the very largest 500 public companies, and UTTERLY ignoring the pay of the heads of the other 29.99 MILLION U.S. companies.

FACT: When ALL U.S. companies are considered, average CEO pay is about ~$400k including bonus and benes, 7-10 times what the line workers make in those 30 million companies.

https://chiefexecutive.net/how-much-does-the-average-ceo-really-earn/

FACT: CEO pay of the small number of very large, exchange listed U.S. public companies is negotiated by sophisticated parties on both sides represented by very expensive lawyers... ON...BOTH... SIDES. This is JUST LIKE how pay is negotiated in pro sports and MSM/Hollywood talent. Those big sports and entertainment celebrities (LW darling Ellen DeGeneres makes about $77 million a year), just like big CEOS, make huge multiples of line pay because they are worth it in advertiser revenues. A big name CEO can save a company billions a year in finance fees alone merely on their name recognition and Rolodex.

Why do they exclude 99.9% of CEOs' pay from their LIE NARRATIVES? Simple, because they are LIARS seeking to fool the public with their LIES.

Why do they always posture the LIE NARRATIVE against private sector CEOs and not their precious MSM/Hollywood/sports celebrities that fuel their toxic, Complex-enriching consumer/celebrity garbage culture? Simple, because they are LIARS seeking to fool people with their LIES.

Why don't they celebrate the fact that we are so rich as a country today that even game show hosts make tens of millions of dollars based on advertising revenue fueled by MIDDLE... CLASS... NOT... UPPER... CLASS... PURCHASING... POWER? Because they don't CARE about the country, only themselves, their parasitic income earned and outrageous pension benefits earned in exchange for little work.

Why do they NEVER talk about all the massive charity work that the corporate newly-enriched do, much of it for overtly LW causes, many of the millionaires and billionaires GIVING IT AWAY AS FAST AS THEY MAKE IT? Simple, because they are LIARS seeking to fool the public with their LIES.

https://gizmodo.com/5019527/bill-ga...-crazy-ventures-of-the-microsoft-millionaires

What they want is to fool their ignorant voting blocs into believing all manner of lies about wealth, who makes it, what they do with it, that it is some static pie, that the categories "rich and poor" are static and don't change over time, that someone got "your piece" of it. All of it toxic, self-serving BALONEY. They do this to ENRICH THEMSELVES. Remember folks, it's not about "the poor," it's about taking from YOU, the non government-dependent private sector of the middle and upper working classes, for THEM, THEIR bloated, bankrupting pensions that private sector workers don't get anything like, THEIR bloated pay in exchange for minimal real work, THEIR power, THEIR wasteful, corrupt grants, THEIR wasteful, corrupt government contracts. They will say ANYTHING, tell ANY LIE to enrich themselves by weaponizing the government via higher taxes, illicit growth, more redistribution.

...all at YOUR expense.

 

Still waiting for an answer to my question about why Walmart is so widely reviled by the same people who claim they like the "little guy makes good in America" narratives.

 

I see, so given a mandatory choice, there is no difference whatsoever between cutting off one's finger and one's whole arm.

LW logic, always interesting to behold.

 

I've noticed that you refer to morality a few times in your sayings here.
I'm not sure what morality has to do with any of these conversations
unless you assume that one person can be moral and another can not be moral.

 

That one's obvious. The big unions have been slavering over unionizing Walmart for decades, become turd flinging monkeys when that is resisted, and equally fearful that the same thing that happened in big box retail could happen in their pet industries and companies. Almost all the negative propaganda on Walmart is the equivalent of the big blow up union rat being put outside a HQ in Manhattan.

99% of anti Walmart stuff (like almost all of the LW narratives parroted to this forum ad infinitum despite being endlessly debunked) comes straight out of massive union PR departments.

Nobody else cares, and it has little effect on the honest public's perception of Walmart. Folks like me shop their as often as possible BECAUSE the Complex hates them so much.

 

I would much rather be an employee than a business owner. I accepted the offer of pay made to me.

 

Sorry but it still becomes a matter of perception.
Like what is better... losing both legs or death?

 

Remember that time Bernie Sanders bought his 3rd house?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/bernie-sanders-summer-house

I guess that's not living like royalty though I mean who doesn't have 3 houses?

 

I love Walmart! I'm there at least 4 times a week.

 

Funny LARP from yet another LW poster who has obviously never worked in the private sector.

 

This forum has no "droolcup" smilicon, so nuffsaid.

 

I despise shopping at Walmart but for traffic and crowds. A true capitalist story though.

 

I know you don’t see the connection. That’s why you can’t understand why someone would take a position that seems to be contrary to their best self interest. It’s the basis of the OP.

 

i'm one of those people who find the op to be particularly offensive. you see, i've busted my ass all my life. even when i could have taken it easy, i lived as if i had little so that what i had earned could work for me. i invested in people who had a dream similar to mine and that increased my wealth exponentially, while allowing those people to build their own fortunes. all this time i have advocated for allowing "the people" to manage their own fortunes instead of demanding they forfeit that right to the government. i am now in an enviable position. i have reached a point at which i need never work again. i find myself wealthy enough to leave my descendants a considerable amount and hope that they do something intelligent with it. i have taken the risk with my capital and come out smelling like a rose. have i earned this windfall? while i labored for the initial investment, the payoff was many times greater than what i would have earned by simple labor. is the risk worth nothing?

the poor will always be with us. this is a simple fact. that they should be allowed to steal from others to alleviate their situation is one of the great downfalls of rabid democracy. the american dream, building an empire of your own, has kept the hoi-polloi from confiscating the wealth of others up to this point, but these socialistically inclined idjits keep insisting that this dream is dead and they are persuading the ignorant masses that every person's wealth should be considered as merely a part of the greater whole. this is the collectivist disease that is killing the country. the dream is alive. not everyone will succeed, but that is not the fault of those who do. stealing from them to allow comfortable poverty for the masses is merely another avenue toward the mediocrity that stifles creativity and assures us a constant downward spiral into obscurity.

 

ployee

Ask another question.
Without the person who has a drive to succeed and become wealthy risking everything to build a factory and create jobs- where will the poor person who just wants to get by find a job?

Should the person who takes all the risk start and run the business as a social service agency, a charity so that the poor person will have a job?

Are you aware that most people who are wealthy did not start that way? That a very large percentage of highly successful businesses started in garages on a shoestring and a prayer?

Businesses starting in garages include:
Amazon
Apple
Disney
Google
Harley Davidson
Hewlitt-Packard
Maglite
Mattel
Microsoft
Dell
Virgin

That is only a small portion, but it illustrates the point. Billionaires who started with nothing would also be a very long list. Equally, many great successes were achieved by people lacking higher education and that would be another long list. For example, the founder of Bank of America had only an 8th grade education.

It is what you bring to the table within yourself that determines what your potential will be. IF you have the right stuff there, most everything else is possible. Working hard is not enough. You also must work smart, have ambition, vision, relentless drive. intense self-discipline and wise judgment. For most, that is just more than they are willing to deliver.
Thus- more than anything else, we make ourselves who we are. The more you make yourself worth, the higher your potential.

 

Congratulations for your success! And I do not feel any poorer because you became rich. One thing I explain to my employees (I am a supervisor not an owner) is if one guy makes more than you, it in no way affects your life. This thinking that there is only so much pie to go around is a myth.