Tigerhawk has some thoughts on the wealthy fools who gave money to Barack Obama and then express surprise when he goes to war against them. I think that this commenter has it nailed:
…a hefty number of the Democratic “rich” are those whose wealth was attained independent of effort.
Actors, musicians, trust fund recipients, etc. People whose acquisition of great wealth leaves them vaguely embarassed and strangely guilty. Bastions of familial wealth…the super rich…are different. They look upon the world as their own little “Pocket God” game.
So they become liberals. Suddenly, their intentions become more important than their actions (past or present). A big poultice is laid upon what is left of their conscience.
I doubt that these people will necessarily change their mind set. Obama delivering a torpedo below their waterline is EXACTLY what they were really bargaining for…like a mentally distressed woman who keeps going back to the boyfriend who beats her up.
I know that this is certainly the Hollywood mind set. It’s the kind of idiocy that has Spielberg visiting Cuba and lauding Fidel. It somehow assuages his guilt at what he perceives to be his own unearned wealth.
I also agree with the commenter who points out that, now that he has the reins of power, Obama doesn’t need the rich any more. He can (or at least thinks he can) retain it without them.
[Update a few minutes later]
What is the difference between Hugo and Barack?
If the Obama administration can put the United Auto Workers on Chrysler’s board of directors, negotiate the terms of its bankruptcy, give a third of the company to Fiat and can even decide how much marketing it should do … does anyone see a functional difference between Hugo Chavez’ and Barack Obama’s views of private companies?
It’s getting harder and harder.
[Update mid morning]
OK, he doesn’t want to turn the US into Venezuela — he wants to turn it into Haiti.
…a hefty number of the Democratic “rich” are those whose wealth was attained independent of effort.
Actors, musicians, trust fund recipients,
I don’t know from trust fund recipients, but actors and musicians who ‘make it big’ rarely do so without a great deal of effort.
Well, talent maybe, but not necessarily effort. Sometimes (particularly with actors) it’s just luck, though perseverance can help, too. You can make a living at it with a lot of effort, but to make it really big takes more.
If the US Government is the largest creditor to Chrysler
and the UAW is one of the three largest creditors to Chrysler,
then they usually end up with Board Seats after a Ch11 filing.
It’s just normal business. What’s unusual is the US Treasury became the lender of DIP credit to Chrysler.
But at the top of the “A” list, the money they make is altogether unrelated to effort and seems closer in principle to what the MLM mavens call “residual income” — not unlike continuing to be paid year after year for a 40-hour week worked in 1978.
Come to think of it, didn’t the MLM types get the word “residual” for this type of income from Hollywood?
Seems we’ve got a little class warfare going on here, where the hardworking Simberg proletarian is upset that other people make more money then they do.
McGehee – there are any number of actors and musicians that had big careers in previous decades, and now aren’t making much money.
Seems we’ve got a little class warfare going on here, where the hardworking Simberg proletarian is upset that other people make more money then they do.
I am? Who knew?
How did you come up with this absurd bullshit, O Great Kreskin?
Well, Rand, if I were to suggest that a Wall Street type pay 3.5% more on income over $250K, I would be accused of class warfare. (Come to think of it, I have been accused of class warfare.)
Now you approvingly quote an article suggesting that certain rich people don’t work hard for their money, and therefore make stupid decisions. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Now, you’ll promptly reply that I have a “reading comprehension” problem or some other malfunction, but I think your bias is showing.
Now you approvingly quote an article suggesting that certain rich people don’t work hard for their money, and therefore make stupid decisions.
Yes.
What does that have to do with whether or not they make more money than me? I expressed no envy of their wealth. In fact, unlike them, I defend their right to keep it, so your slander of me continues to be nuts.
I’m still awaiting a sane explanation of your nonsense. I won’t be holding my breath.
Well, talent maybe, but not necessarily effort.
I’m reminded of the stereotypical musician who is an overnight success after playing for fifteen years.
What does that have to do with whether or not they make more money than me?
The whole point of the article was that “rich Hollywood types feel guilty because of unearned wealth.”
Take out “rich” or “unearned” and the article falls on its face. Complaining about “unearned” wealth is a form of class envy. Isn’t the whole point about the Teaparty / go Galt movement that the Teaparty-goers are “work hard” and their “earned” income is being unfairly taxed?
I’m going to try one more time. Nowhere did I, or anyone complain about unearned wealth. It was simply pointed out that there are sometimes psychological consequences to it. Unlike them, I want them to keep their “unearned wealth” (as long as their way of unearning it isn’t to steal from me and mine). But please, continue to fantasize about me and my imagined class envy. It seems that there’s no way to stop you in your delusions.
And of course the existence of an exception completely disproves the point, right?
If those psychological consequences involved giving money to candidates you support, there would be no post.
It seems to me that every time I suggest that asking folks to pay a little more tax is not unreasonable, I get accused of running a communist conspiracy. I find that both unfair and irritating.
People, even those from Hollywood, make decisions based on what they think is right. These decisions may even be not in their self-interest. Selfishness is not a virtue, after all.
If the envirofascists had their way, Haiti would be an improvement. I don’t call them the Pleistocene Liberation Organization for nothing.
McGehee – my point was that Hollywood actors who are making bug bucks do so because their movies make big bucks. Much like playing for a winning sports team tends to yield higher salaries.
In other posts, people have argued that higher salaries are proof positive of greater effort and “worth” than lower ones. Is Hollywood, one of America’s most profitable businesses, somehow the only exception?
It seems to me that every time I suggest that asking folks to pay a little more tax is not unreasonable, I get accused of running a communist conspiracy. I find that both unfair and irritating.
Well, I would find it unfair and irritating, too, if you could find an instance of it actually happening. More reading miscomprehension on your part, I guess.
And I see you’re still unable to support your claims that I suffer from class envy.
Bitching about “unearned income” is class envy. If you thought they earned their money, you wouldn’t be psychoanalzying them.
Bitching about “unearned income” is class envy.
No one “bitched about unearned income,” regardless of how many times you repeat this delusion. You simply continue to make an ass of yourself.
The whole post is bitching about unearned income. Read what you wrote, not what you think you wrote.
It was bitching about stupid people. The fact that they have unearned income is just a bonus. No one said they shouldn’t keep their income. No one expressed envy of their income. Again, you’re making an ass of yourself.
Fine, Rand, titling a post “rich idiots” is NOT expressing envy of rich people. Have it your way.
Do I need to add a sarcasm tag or is that thick enough for you?
On what planet is calling someone an idiot expressing envy of them?
Is English your native language?
> Fine, Rand, titling a post “rich idiots” is NOT expressing envy of rich people.
Does Gerrib think that Rand envies Gerrib?
I ask because Rand has said that Gerrib is an idiot, etc.
“Isn’t the whole point about the Teaparty / go Galt movement that the Teaparty-goers are “work hard” and their “earned” income is being unfairly taxed?”
No. That is not the “whole point.” There are any number of issues addressed at the gatherings. The general tenor is concern about government overreach and self-serving (some would say rapacious) politicians.
Is that really what you thought I was arguing?
What I was arguing wasn’t that I think that, but that many of the beneficiaries of those huge Hollywood salaries seem to think that about their own money.
Do try to keep up.