Poverty

How Americans Define the "1 %" Up to Feel Better About Cutting Them and Not Us Down to Size

|

The Washington Post's "Wonkblog" features "What it's like to be a part of the world's richest 1 percent, in 15 incredible photos."

One of them has a striking infinity pool very high in the sky, goddamnit! Another shows evidence some richie rich bastard employs two maids to make their beds! Gah!

Note their headline locution: "world's richest one percent."

You know what it takes to be in that, Americans? According to one estimate this decade, a U.S. annual (after tax) income of $34,000. You can use the "Global Rich List" site to see where you likely stand. (Precise numbers for things like this are always questionable, but you are in the range at least.)

The article could have had a picture of someone driving a 2002 Nissan Sentra to shop at Family Dollar in Ames, Iowa, and been very true to the spirit of the "world's richest 1 percent."

It is quite common for Americans who like to bitch about/be envious of the American "1 %" and contemplate policy to help level them for the benefit of the masses to ignore the redistribution theoretically demanded by their own role in the worldwide 1 percent.

Also, anti-1 percenters strangely rarely focus on free trade and immigration policies that work as natural levelers of income and opportunity around the world.

It is a near-universal belief of the American left: everyone richer than me needs to be cut down to size.

Hat tip: Jarrett Skorup's Facebook page.

NEXT: How ambiguous a statute may Congress pass?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. 0.04%

    To paraphrase DLR, “I don’t FEEL rich”

    1. You’re in the top
      0.07%
      richest people in the world by income.

      That makes you the
      4,441,989th
      richest person on earth by income.

      HA! I didn’t even have to claim any of my orphan slaves!

      1. *does happy dance with Swiss*

      2. Turns out I’m the seven millionth richest person in the world. Now where did I put my monocle?

        1. Just have the orphans fetch you another, wot?

        2. No worries, my good man! Have one of mine!

          *hands over platinum wire monocle*

      3. “Richest person…by income”

        That isnt how that works.

        Wealth, it is all about wealth.

        1. STOP HARSHING MY RICH-BUZZ!

        2. SOMEONE’s jealous….

          *chortles with all that [greater-than sign]0.04%ers]

        3. Yeah, but I’d much rather think I’m in the top 0.13% than in the top 4%. I swear it’s just because I’m young!

        4. Yeah, I’m nowhere near the “top 1%” by wealth. Probably because I don’t “own” a home.

      4. Fucking hell, I’m sitting all the way down here at 0.15% in 9 millionish territory. Time for you greedy bastards to give up some of your unearned cash.

        1. Comrade in arms, let’s stick it to these capitalist pigdogs!

    2. You’re doing pretty well by any objective standard (keeping in mind this is after tax income).

      Can I haz a job?

    3. .02%, and about the 1.5 millionth richest person in the world. By income. Probably better than that, because I have no clue what they want me to put down for my benefits.

      By wealth, not so good. Only in the top .7%.

    4. Me too: 0.04% Shit, I don’t feel rich, either.

    5. .5% Income

      25% Wealth

      I need a fucking job…

  2. Can’t wrap my head around that title.

    But I bet those rich bastards have powerful handheld COMPUTERS that not only double as PORTABLE TELEPHONES but also are MUTLIMEDIA DEVICES that connect to the INTERNET.

    1. No, wait, now I think I got it.

    2. I don’t have one of those…..

      *begins sobbing softly*

  3. So the argument is, stated here in plain words, that as long as there is mass poverty in the world, nobody gets to bitch about the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, because an arbitrary figure like “world’s richest 1%” will include working-class people in wealthy countries. Thus, the more poverty, the less entitled we are to bitch about the wealthy. That’s the most pristine libertarian logic I’ve ever seen, I think.

    1. Everyone “gets” to bitch. It’s bitching all the way down.

      1. trickle down bitching

    2. Perhaps you should have RTFA:

      It is quite common for Americans who like to bitch about/be envious of the American “1 %” and contemplate policy to help level them for the benefit of the masses to ignore the redistribution theoretically demanded by their own role in the worldwide 1 percent.

      So someone like you would have the Feds stick a gun in your face and take half your stuff and you would whine “But, but..I mean them!!!”

      1. Just like Cytofascist says, “Let’s you and him go fight!”, Choney wants the government to take EVERYONE ELSE’S money. But not his.

        It all makes perfect sense when you think about it. Like a child.

      2. “There are very poor people in the world, thus we can never raise taxes on anyone here, ever” is not less specious.

        1. Nice strawman ya got there – be a shame if anyone recognized it…

        2. Maybe you should consider WHY the majority of Americans are top 1%.

          1. Because the country started with a vast supply of natural resources that it was able to exploit with free labor for centuries, eventually leveraged into self-reinforcing global economic and military dominance?

            The American middle class, however, is relatively poorer than middle classes in other industrialized countries. Relative wealth matters because wealth to some degree equals power, and large power imbalances lead to injustices and a loss of freedom.

            And those at the top keep taking more for themselves and get unpaid Internet poodles to make their excuses for them.

            1. When you say the middle class is relatively poorer…can you go to into more detail?

              What countries? Have you compared disposable income? What is the purchasing power like here vs there? What is this based on?

              When you say taking more for themselves…who are they taking from exactly?

              1. These details are what make exercises such as this article rather pointless. Let’s take median wealth, which puts the US at 25th in the world. The US remains wealthy, but the wealth is increasingly concentrated. Real wages, or purchasing power, have been stagnant for most Americans for decades.

                And no libertarian needs to defend increasing inequality in the US because the number 1 reason for it is increasing “financialization” of the economy. Meaning, for various reasons having nothing to do with increased human freedom, and really taking off around 1980, more and more income has come from the economically unproductive practice of making money off money.

                1. I’d like to see details since you are making these claims.

            2. “The American middle class, however, is relatively poorer than middle classes in other industrialized countries.”

              You should probably get out and travel a bit.

            3. Because the country started with a vast supply of natural resources that it was able to exploit with free labor for centuries

              You could the same for most of Africa.

            4. Are you kidding? Have you visited Europe? I was in shock when I studied there and found out how much they pay for even the smallest things. Their ‘cheap’ cafeteria lunches were the same price as I dish out for low end sit down lunches in the states. The price for their monthly bus passes is more than I pay for insurance and gas in a month. Plus everything is run down due to age (and I’m not talking about the historical homes). The price I paid to share a room with another student made DC five blocks from the white house look cheap.

              Nice place to visit when you expect to pay through the nose, but terrible place to live if you aren’t wealthy.

              1. Importantly, those people have guaranteed healthcare–a major and unpredictable individual cost in the US. You have to take everything into account.

                1. Slaves had free healthcare so they should have just shut the fuck up.

                2. Yes, the NHS – wonder of the world.

                  And is the front-runner for most dangerous place to be if you’re ever sick in the western world.

                  But hey – its ‘free’.

                  As long as your not overweight.

                  Or smoke

                  Or need a treatment they won’t cover – then they threaten to send you the bill for *everything* if you try to get the care they refused to provide from someplace else.

                  1. To be fair, the British NHS is probably the worst example of guaranteed healthcare that you will find in Europe. Not that I want to defend any of it.

                3. When you say guaranteed healthcare….having health insurance is not the same as having access to health care or quality health care. Would you mind giving us a break down comparing the countries and what you receive?

                4. Isn’t most health care costs for end of life? Not sure how that would really benefit others.

              2. Have you visited Europe?

                I lived in West Germany in the 80s and everything you say was less pronounced as I remember it. The middle class was doing quite well for themselves, prices were cheap, etc. Things may have changed.

                The biggest difference between the 2 countries and which probably remains: the top 1% are *way* better off in the US.

            5. Tony|8.31.15 @ 2:28PM|#

              The American middle class, however, is relatively poorer than middle classes in other industrialized countries. Relative wealth matters because wealth to some degree equals power, and large power imbalances lead to injustices and a loss of freedom.

              OMFG – you have no idea how the rest of the world lives do you?

              Britain still hasn’t caught up with the US in terms of QOL (though they’ve closed the huuuuuuge gap significantly since the 50’s).

              I lived in Italy in 98-02. Couldn’t drink the tap water, electrical system would blow fuses (didn’t even have breakers) because it couldn’t handle large appliances, gas for the stove came in *bottles* like for an RV.

              No on-demand hot water.

              Heating was portable gas heaters.

              *Local* calls were metered per minute and so was the internet – years after the US had gone to unmetered internet and local connections.

              1. The American middle class, however, is relatively poorer than middle classes in other industrialized countries.

                LOL, we’re way richer than all those other middle classes, but we’re relatively poorer compared to our richest! Hilarious.

                It’s especially hilarious because if you look on a global scale, American middle class people are closer to the richest people in the world than people in Italy are to the richest people in the world. So by your logic, America’s doing a much better job since there’s less of a gap between our middle class and the global uber-wealthy than exists in most other industrialized countries because our middle class is richer.

                See why your argument is the dumbest thing ever said, Tony? Because it is all dependent on what perspective you’re using. If you use a global perspective America’s middle class kicks ass and the only way you can pretend there’s a problem is to narrow your view and completely ignore the rest of the planet while bitching that the American middle class is way poorer than the richest people in this country.

              2. I stayed in France in ’98. The family computer had an AT keyboard, when back home PS2 was already being phased out for USB. Same phone/internet situation that Aga describes. We played games on a Genesis instead of Playstation.

                At least they had hot water and dependable electricity.

            6. The American middle class, however, is relatively poorer than upper classes in other industrialized countries.

              FTFY

            7. Because the country started with a vast supply of natural resources that it was able to exploit with free labor for centuries,

              So why is it that a whole continent (Africa) also has a vast supply of natural resources and all the low-cost labor you could want, yet remains mired in poverty?

              Perhaps there are other, more relevant variables?

            8. Because the country started with a vast supply of natural resources that it was able to exploit with free labor for centuries

              So why are the Dutch rich? They didn’t have those things. Hell, they barely have land. Russia had the things you describe. Why isn’t Russia as rich as the US or the Netherlands.

        3. Tony|8.31.15 @ 2:09PM|#

          “There are very poor people in the world, thus we can never raise taxes on anyone here, ever” is not less specious.

          Why raise taxes *here* if its not to be redistributed *there*? I mean, you like the idea that we take money from people here to give to other people ‘who need it’. But you suddenly only think this is OK when its to other people in the US despite the fact that all the arguments you use to justify redistributive policies more than justify taking money from pretty much *all* Americans and giving it to the poor in the rest of the world.

          But suddenly, its *your* money on the line and all you can do is desperately try to deflect attention.

          1. Relative wealth matters because wealth to some degree equals power, and large power imbalances lead to injustices and a loss of freedom.

            See? This right there is the justification for taking *your* money and giving it to poor people in Syria. After all, you have significantly more money than they do, that’s inequality, and you said yourself, this is a power imbalance issue.

            1. As he said, he’s not concerned with “charity” – he is concerned with “national redistribution,” like Bernie.

              You know, compassion and communal sharing, but on a “national” level, not an “international” level. “Socialism,” of sorts, but, you know, not the “international” kind . . .

              1. If they only had a name for that, something like ‘Communal-ism’?

                Hmmm…. Not quite right, but almost rolls off the tongue.

                Maybe if it involved a little more compassionate ‘unintentional’ death of millions?

      3. Indeed. If we’re really applying consistency over the global elite ‘1%’ then nationality should be irrelevant. Those in the middle class should be willing to lose 40-60% of their collective wealth for the sake of poor souls in South Sudan. Quite amusing that the people who consistently demand self-sacrifice from others are unwilling to self-sacrifice themselves.

        1. How do you know that I wouldn’t see my own taxes hiked? Plenty of very rich people advocate for higher taxes on themselves.

          1. A better question is “why would I believe a childish sociopath with a history of lying and trying to pathetically cast himself as moral?”

            Talk is cheap Tony, and your credibility is shit.

          2. Well i dont have much so i am wondering if you can give me some money? I will set up a paypal.

            As to your second point…why are you complaining about all the loop holes and deductions they use to get out of paying taxes if what you say is true? Why not take the standard deduction or you know donate to the treasury?

            1. Because contrary to desperate and revealing libertarian claims, I have very little emotional stake in what should be a rational policy discussion. Your getting emotional over taxes is a ploy; for some reason you can’t just come out and say that nobody’s taxes should ever be hiked for any reason.

              1. Tony you said you wanted to pay more to help others. Let’s see it in action…i need help and don’t make a living wage.

                If the rich want to pay more…why do they need government to raise taxes on them to do so? Why take deductions and put money in tax havens?

                1. See, talk is cheap. He gets to lecture people on his imagined moral superiority, but then when he’s actually challenged to do something, he suddenly doesn’t care. Very predictable.

                  I’d be curious to see what Tony’s yearly charitable donations are.

                  1. Nobody is talking about charity except you guys, another childish distraction.

                    1. Yes, why hold the person claiming moral superiority to any kind of standard? As long as Tony pathetically pats himself on the back for having the ‘right’ opinions, he can’t be expected to actually do anything. Either you’re willing to self-sacrifice or are a petty, envious little shit demanding that others do it for you. You have repeatably shown yourself to be a childish elitist with a disdain for the poor. Shockingly, that makes your bloviations meaningless.

                    2. You said that you wanted to pay more to help your fellow man. why are you balking at giving me money?

                    3. You said that you wanted to pay more to help your fellow man. why are you balking at giving me money?

                    4. Charity? Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

              2. “for some reason you can’t just come out and say that nobody’s taxes should ever be hiked for any reason”

                Could that be because almost no one actually believes this?

                1. Well, I am ok with raising the taxes on those who already benefit from the government favoring them through the tax code.

                  Tony of course is not arguing for a tax code that does this.

              3. Nobody’s taxes should ever be hiked for any reason.

                FM 8/31/2015

                Feel free to quote me anytime. Also we don’t need one more fucking law in this country.

              4. All taxation is theft. Nobody’s taxes should ever be hiked for any reason. There ya go.

              5. I have very little emotional stake in what should be a rational policy discussion.

                That’s rather? Randian.

          3. Plenty of very rich people advocate for higher taxes on themselves.

            Other rich people cut the bullshit and donate their money to worthy causes, without getting the government involved.

          4. If that were true, you’d donate more of your income to the government.

            Here’s a helpful link

            So how about you put up or shut the fuck up twatwaffle.

          5. Because if you actually believed in what you spout, actually lent it credence, you would volunteer extra taxes without waiting for the government to steal it from your peers.

            1. I feel like adding that this is one of the fundamental differences between libertarians and progressives. Progressives scream and shout that the government must make everyone do what they think proper, but won’t lead by example and do it themselves, voluntarily. Warren Buffet and his hypocritical call for the government to raise taxes on the rich is a shining example. Nothing is stopping him from sending fat checks to the government, and he in fact goes after every scheme possible to dodge taxes and suck the government teat.

              Libertarians never tell proggies to do anything except leave them alone, and for that respectful attitude, they are called selfish greedy assholes. The day a proggies shows any respect for anyone else’s independence is the day I drop dead from shock.

              1. Also my understanding is Warren’s calls for more taxes would be on the normal income tax and not capital gains.

          6. Plenty of very rich people advocate for higher taxes on themselves.

            Actually, very, very rarely.

            Plenty of rich people advocate for higher taxes on other rich people. Usually to their personal benefit. But, those demands are almost invariably planned based on careful tax planning on the part of the person making the demand. m

            1. Plenty of rich people advocate for higher taxes on other rich people.

              Like Bill Gates’s proposal for income tax increase and property tax decrease in Washington?

          7. How do you know that I wouldn’t see my own taxes hiked?

            Because you aren’t writing checks to the Treasury over and above what your taxes are?

            Plenty of very rich people advocate for higher taxes on themselves.

            After they have sheltered the fuck out of their assets, so they don’t actually have to pay those higher taxes.

        2. Those in the middle class should be willing to lose 40-60% of their collective wealth for the sake of poor souls in South Sudan.

          It’s entirely a stupid exercise.

          Mises had a great article where he analyzed redistribution in Argentina, I think.

          Basically, if they did a perfect redistribution of wealth from above the mean to below in terms of wealth (not income), basically the poor would see about a 10% gain, but the destruction to the capital stock would halt growth for nearly a generation.

          Rationally speaking, redistributing wealth through taxation is a stupid exercise.

          In my experience, it’s only promoted by well meaning people who haven’t done the math, and people whose envy blinds them to reason.

          1. That’s one of those things a lot of people don’t seem to get. The wealth may look like a lot when it’s in one place after collecting for a lifetime, but its basically nothing and is gone in a day when spread out between all the people in the world.

    3. So the one percent is an arbitrary number now that you are in it?

      1. Pffttt – spoken like a TRUE evul one percenter KOCH lover.

      2. You’re not advocating redistributing anything to the poor in other countries, so why should I? Why do libertarians think it’s valid to expect others to live by ludicrous moral expectations that they have no intention of holding themselves?

        1. One would hope, Tony, that you would hold yourself to your own moral standards.

          10% of your income, donated to the right charities, could lift 3 – 4 children out of poverty and provide them with an education.

          You could stop polluting this blog with your irrational, superstitious and cryptoracist rants and use the time you recover to earn more money, thereby allowing you to do this without any impact on your standard of living!

          Why is that Tony? Why don’t you engage in the redistribution you demand of others?

          1. Because I don’t consider the topic to be charity, but distribution on a national scale.

            1. How arbitrary. It’s moral on a national scale but not a global scale.

              1. When the day comes that it is possible and practical to have unified global economic policy, I’d be happy to discuss it. Right now we’re stuck with individual countries and affiliations managing their own economies. I for one welcome the new world order.

                1. Why wait Tony. Live as cheap as you can and send the balance to Haiti. It’s the moral thing to do.

                  1. Because I’m a selfish bastard who is willing to overlook mass misery in order to live a decent lifestyle in the short time I have on earth, and also because my individual actions won’t do a damn thing to change the amount of misery in the world. That’s why we discuss these on a macro-policy scale, or why we should be.

                    1. “Because I’m a selfish bastard who is willing to overlook mass misery in order to live a decent lifestyle in the short time I have on earth”

                      Straight from the horse’s mouth, folks!

                    2. I appreciate your honesty. I too am selfish, but I don’t see that as a moral failing.

                    3. Since you are selfish…why are you calling on others to be self-less?

                    4. So, Tony is either (a) immoral himself, by his own reckoning, since he won’t redistribute without being forced to or (b) proposing something that has no moral basis (redistribution).

                      Which is it, Tony? Are you immoral, or proposing an immoral program?

            2. Why wont you distribute your wealth to me since you took it from me in the first place?

            3. Why wont you distribute your wealth to me since you took it from me in the first place?

        2. You advocate redistribution when you are in the 99 but reject it when you are in the 1. And I’m the one that expects others to live up to standards that I refuse to?

    4. The argument is that this policy is nakedly driven by envy.

      1. That’s not an argument, it’s an excuse for turning your brain off, just as is expected of you. People advocate a more equitable distribution because they think it results in a better society, and because wealth does not get concentrated in the hands of a very few because the system is operating at peak moral and economic efficiency.

        1. You don’t understand what an argument is.

          1. Or what wealth is. Or efficiency.

        2. Tony i have less than you so will you give me some?

        3. People advocate a more equitable distribution because they think it results in a better society

          … except that throughout history it never works out that way; redistribution always lines the pockets of the politically connected at the expense of everyone else.

          and because wealth does not get concentrated in the hands of a very few because the system is operating at peak moral and economic efficiency

          Except, unlike free makret capitalism, where wealth does get diffused in the hands of a growing middle class, and “shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations” is the norm, when the politically connected control the distribution of wealth, you get wealth concentration.

          So in the end, you have a policy that doesn’t do what it is supposed to do, but satisfies the emotional need of greedy and selfish people who covet other people’s stuff.

          1. Redistribution is largely responsible for the prosperity enjoyed by large numbers of people in the wealthy world–sometimes this is called having a middle class. Laissez-faire markets, and we’ve tried them more or less, seem to result naturally in upward distribution.

            I think the real mental block going on here is libertarians’ refusal to consider that the wealthy acquired their wealth by anything other than virtuous and legitimate means. As libertarians always say, of course, if it’s legal it’s good.

            1. Redistribution is largely responsible for the prosperity enjoyed by large numbers of people in the wealthy world

              But enough about the US Congress.

              /rimshot

              1. It’s a lie anyway, free markets are responsible for the greatest prosperity in the world, not redistribution. But that’s what ‘Tony’ does, he lies.

            2. Redistribution is largely responsible for the prosperity enjoyed by large numbers of people in the wealthy world–sometimes this is called having a middle class.

              “You didn’t build that.”

              God, you’re a disgustingly evil individual. By your logic, I should just sit around all day waiting for my betters to tend to my needs. Why bother working?

            3. “Laissez-faire markets, and we’ve tried them more or less, seem to result naturally in upward distribution.”

              Ummm, it’s that more or less part that would be the problem.

              “I think the real mental block going on here is libertarians’ refusal to consider that the wealthy acquired their wealth by anything other than virtuous and legitimate means.”

              Of course not everyone acquired their wealth legitimately. But, the only sure fire way to acquire it and keep, is to capture that government power that was given in the name of equity and safety, and use it to suppress your competition. Your mental block is that you actually believe that those people in government, the ones you expect to protect you from all the greedy capitalist, will in fact do what they are supposed to. The reality is they will sell you to the highest bidder the first chance they have.

            4. “I think the real mental block going on here is libertarians’ refusal to consider that the wealthy acquired their wealth by anything other than virtuous and legitimate means”

              I think you have it backwards. I think that *you* refuse to believe that any of the wealthy acquired their wealth through any but nefarious means.

              Once you imagine the possibility that *some* people earn their wealth honestly, the spectacle of them having that wealth forcibly taken from them starts to look like an injustice, even if curing said injustice may lead to not such nice people *also* getting to keep their wealth.

              1. In Tony’s defense, he’s an immoral twatwaffle who has readily admitted that he would execute his political opponents and is a selfish asshole. It’s only natural for him to ascribe horrible and nefarious schemes to everyone else because that’s all he knows.

            5. I thought you have been complaining repeatedly about lack of redistribution and that wealth is concentrating for a select few? Just above you were saying the rich want to and need to pay more. You seem to contradict yourself.

              How do you reconcile saying we have laissez faire markets while at the same time saying there is all this redistribution going on to help with prosperity around the world?

            6. Redistribution is largely responsible for the prosperity enjoyed by large numbers of people in the wealthy world–sometimes this is called having a middle class.

              By redistribution, we mean forcible redistribution, right? Via taxation and transfer programs, correct?

              So, middle class people are in the middle class because they are beneficiaries of, rather than the funding source for, those transfer programs?

              To test this, we would just need to look at whether middle class families pay more into, or take more out of, redistribution programs each year, right?

              I don’t think the math works that way. Go ahead and show us some reason to believe it does (since you made the assertion), and we can discuss.

            7. Tony so you acknowledge a few actually produce stuff for the rest of us? And you want to demonize them why?

          2. “So in the end, you have a policy that doesn’t do what it is supposed to do, but satisfies the emotional need of greedy and selfish people who covet other people’s stuff.”

            Don’t waste your time. All that matters to Tony is that he feel morally superior to all the heartless libertarians because he cares about people in poverty. He never contemplates the fact that the “People advocate a more equitable distribution because they think it results in a better society…” Might just be wrong. He’s more than happy to have an ineffective policy, as long as it makes him feel like he really cares without him actually having to do anything.

            1. “He’s more than happy to have an ineffective policy, as long as it makes him feel like he really cares without him actually having to do anything.”

              Or, to literally quote Tony, from above:

              “I’m a selfish bastard who is willing to overlook mass misery in order to live a decent lifestyle in the short time I have on earth, and also because my individual actions won’t do a damn thing to change the amount of misery in the world. That’s why we discuss these on a macro-policy scale, or why we should be.”

              Am I mis-parsing if I point out that these two statements are essentially the same?

        4. You want peak moral efficiency? Stop trying to take other people’s stuff.

          You want peak economic efficiency? Stop trying to take other people’s stuff.

        5. People advocate a more equitable distribution because they think it results in a better society

          People think lots of stupid things. Doesn’t mean they’re correct. You’re a great example of that.

          wealth does not get concentrated in the hands of a very few because the system is operating at peak moral and economic efficiency

          WTF is this word salad supposed to mean? “Peak moral efficiency” – did you just make that up?

          1. Economic efficiency requires the formation of large pools of capital, but apparently it also requires that no one has a large pool of capital?

            “Moral” efficiency requires that large sums of money be extracted from people by force or threat of force?

        6. People advocate a more equitable distribution because they think it results in a better society

          Then people are idiots because they’re making claims based on faith rather than on evidence. An equitable distribution of wealth is dandy if it’s because everyone is relatively skilled, but it’s ridiculously stupid to try for an equitable distribution of wealth through government mandated theft.

        7. “People advocate a more equitable DISTRIBUTION…”

          You do not know where wealth comes from, do you?

          I had an argument with a dumb-fuck Bolivian communist once. He was angry at America because we have all of the automobiles and won’t let them have any. In his mind automobiles were unfairly distributed. He could not grasp that America is full of cars because Americans get out of bed, unlike him, and bust their asses all day long building those cars. All he knew is that greedy Americans would not give him a car and that is just not fair.

          Hey Tony, you aren’t Bolivian, are you?

        8. Peak moral efficiency? So you’re the authority on that? Wow, you have one hell of an ego.

    5. No Tony, the last two words you typed there are simply not true.

      How are you entitled to bitch about someone else’s accumulated wealth in the first place?

      1. What if they accumulated it by robbing a bank and getting away with it? Can I bitch then?

        Lots of people consider the way people get very wealthy in this country to be legalized theft.

        1. You mean taxation right, that’s what you mean by legalized theft.

        2. If you are talking about crony capitalism, which isn’t capitalism or a free market, then by all means, bitch away. I will join you. I just don’t think you will end up liking who you are bitching about.

          Simply having accumulated large amounts of wealth is not, in itself, immoral in any way whatsoever. Nor is a person who has done so obligated to give it away to other people.

          Your comment is a prime example of the inability of the proggie mind to distinguish even simple concepts. All wealth is not accumulated by theft Tony.

          1. Crony capitalism is only bad when it enriches people like the Kochs. Buffett, Soros, and Obama are all good though.

          2. You claim to care about what you call crony capitalism yet you insist on defending every penny accumulated by the very wealthy as a product of good and virtuous merit-based capitalism, when it clearly is not.

            1. Keep on lying, ‘Tony’, it’s obviously all you’ve got.

            2. “You claim to care about what you call crony capitalism yet you insist on defending every penny accumulated by the very wealthy as a product of good and virtuous merit-based capitalism”

              No, he didn’t. Literally no one here has made that argument. If someone got rich by robbing a bank, they should go to jail. If they “got away with it” – i.e. they were not convicted in a court of law, then you have no right to assume that they are guilty and punish them anyway. That’s what we call “equality before the law” and “due process” and there important reasons not tied to economics for adhering to those.

              *You*, however, refuse to believe that anyone could have earned wealth honestly.

            3. What would good and virtuous merit-based capitalism consist of? I would like you to go into more detail regarding this claim.

            4. Again with the failed grasp.

              Where do you see me doing that?

              How many countless posts have I made critical of the rampant, blatant cronyism that this current odious administrations engages in? I wasn’t around here pre-Obumbles but I gave Bush plenty of shit about his cronyism back in the day.

        3. What is legalized theft here…who has done it and what laws did they break? Who would this consist of?

          1. Here is an example just off of the top of my head

            http://blogs.wsj.com/ventureca…..-they-now/

        4. “Lots of people consider the way people get very wealthy in this country to be legalized theft.”

          Taxation is the chief mechanism whereby a lot of very wealthy folks are sustained, so “lots of people” are right, strictly; but they are also wrong when they stupidly attribute it to a lot of fantastic nonsense and entirely ignore that taxation is the primal act and always the ultimate source of all lesser acts of legalised violence.

    6. Tony:

      So the argument is, stated here in plain words, that as long as there is mass poverty in the world, nobody gets to bitch about the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few

      Actually, the argument was, stated here in plain words, that 1% bitchers frequently ignore their own membership in the 1%, and what that implies, in their wonderful 1%ness.

      I’m not sure you understand what “plain words” means. However, I do think it’s obvious why you have to strawman to get your daily bitch quota in.

  4. Some of these photos are just weird for an article supposedly about how horribly well-off the rich are. That Ohio home has a horribly shitty view, ‘the Highline’ is a shitty garden on top of a building, and the back of the Hollywood sign just speaks volumes about nothing.

    Also, great job using the Opera de Monte-Carlo, a theatre built in the bloody 1870s by a prince as an example of the evils of the modern rich.

    1. ‘the Highline’ is a shitty garden on top of a building

      It’s actually a pretty nice park. Full of motherfuckers, though. I think the point is that it’s in Chelsea.

      1. Fair enough, from the photo it looked like I have a better garden at home.

        1. I mean, it is pretty funny all the same. It’s a public park!

      2. It’s in a disused railway line that runs about 25 blocks from Midtown to Chelsea. I guess they used that picture because that area is the new up-and-coming playground of Manhattan’s rich and famous.

    2. SOMEONE SOMEWHERE HAS NICE SHIT!!!!

      GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!

      1. This ‘pretending historical buildings funded by aristocrats are examples of the modern wealthy to embrace our petty feelings of envy’ plan as potential though.

        THE KOCHS WATCH PARADES FROM HERE.

        GOD BLESS THE NAZIS FOR DESTROYING THE HORRIBLE CAPITALISTIC MONUMENT OF DECADENCE.

  5. It is a near-universal belief of the American left: everyone richer than me needs to be cut down to size

    Witness the idiocy of envy and class warfare. It really is this stupid. And the people that engage in it are really that stupid.

    But we already knew that. The examples are endless.

    1. Crabs in a basket.

      “As long as YOU don’t get out, I’m happy!”

      People suck.

  6. It is a near-universal belief of the American left: everyone richer than me needs to be cut down to size.

    And strangely, the American left is heavily represented within the 1%. More represented than Team Red or, well, any other TEAM.

  7. Morons. They should show one of the WalMart workers from that earlier piece.

    I’m at 0.44% myself. Gotta get higher!

    1. Just latch on the Sly Stone. He’s Gonna Take You Higher (HIGHER!)

  8. I think I missed the signup deadline or something, because I’m not part of the 1% or the 99%.

    1. It’s a range… surely you fall into the range.

      You glibertarians and your penchant for not being ‘joiners’.

      1. Sorry, you really can’t put me in a group without my consent.

        I mean, I guess you can, but you can’t expect me to give a shit.

        Well, I guess you could expect me to give a shit, but you should prepare to be disappointed.

        1. I’ve been at DEFCON “Disappointment” since about 1998…

          1. 1998? Paul, I am disappoint…

        2. Sorry, you really can’t put me in a group without my consent.

          Sorry, there are two groups of people: those who consent to be put in a group, and those who do not.

          1. WRONG! There are two kinds of people:

            Those who think there are two kinds of people

            and those who don’t.

            PWND

            1. WRONG! There are two kinds of people:

              Those who think that *one* division of people into two groups exhausts the possible dichotomies, and those who do not.

        3. Sorry, you really can’t put me in a group without my consent.

          I am laughing so hard I’m in serious danger of suffocation.

          1. I’m kinda tempted to go back to my elementary school and tell off my gym teacher.

    2. “No one told me when to run
      I missed the starting gun”

  9. “‘Micro4k
    8/12/2015 5:58 PM EST [Edited]
    Ana Swanson:
    Your consistent racist portrayal of Africans is beyond odious.
    As usual you posted beautiful pictures of peoples/places worldwide
    The only two pictures of Africa show Africans as maids and safari cook. “

    It is increasingly clear to me that criticizing the “inequality”-mongers with basic facts (a la Brian’s point) is utterly useless, and that the only way to discredit these idiotic WonkBlog types who pump out leftist agitprop is to use their own cultural-critiques against them and accuse them of all sorts of cultural-heresy a la the above.

    1. That works, but it also reinforces the “validity” of their idiocy, which is probably worse.

      1. Perhaps. Perhaps it also reinforces how fucking dumb the complaints themselves are.

        which is something i began to grasp while browsing, “Your Fave is Problematic” last night

        they always go after their own

        The fact that Dan Savage is the arch-enemy of the SocJustice crowd is telling.

        1. Well, there’s no point in going after someone who definitely won’t feel bad about it. Unless you can get them fired.

    2. “Ana Swanson:
      Your consistent racist portrayal of Africans is beyond odious.
      As usual you posted beautiful pictures of peoples/places worldwide
      The only two pictures of Africa show Africans as maids and safari cook. ”

      I see those words. I know what they mean. My brain just won’t believe that a person can be that demoralized. That person isn’t real, is she?

      1. What’s funny about that primitivist, Live Aid idea of Africa is that Lagos in Nigeria and Luanda in Angola are two of the most expensive cities in the world to live in.

  10. Interesting article up at WSJ: “Crackdown on Racial Bias Could Boost Drivers’ Costs for Auto Loans”.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/cr…..1441038864

    Check this out:

    “”Using an analysis of borrowers’ last names paired with locations, the CFPB and the Justice Department said in settlements with Ally and Honda that Hispanics, African-Americans and Asian-Americans were charged about 0.2 percentage point to 0.3 point more in dealer markups on average than white borrowers”

    Putting income modifiers and subsequent creditworthiness aside as a function of race, and putting aside the usefulness of borrowers’ last names and locations as a proxy for race, too…

    The article says the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau has muscled $200 million from auto lenders in racial discrimination payments over the last couple of years (costs which undoubtedly will need to be covered by higher fees and/or higher interest rates for new borrowers), and on top of that? The solution to this supposed racial discrimination from auto lenders has been to raise the cost of borrowing for both whites and everyone else.

    1. Progressives don’t care if everyone (including their favorite protected classes) do worse under their “solutions”–so long as the people they hate are doing worse than they would have done otherwise. It’s a sick, zero-sum, race competition world they want to build, where every victory for minorities must translate into a loss for whites somehow.

      I’ve always thought Johnson was a worse President than FDR because Johnson had all of FDR’s mistakes to learn from. That makes Obama much worse than Johnson. Obama is probably the worst President we’ve had since the Civil War.

      1. FEELS NOT RESULTZS

    2. Chrysler Credit didn’t get fined? that’s weird.

  11. What amazes me is how unwilling Americans are to acknowledge their wealth. Every time I see an article pointing out how rich even “poor” Americans really are, the people in the comments desperately try to ignore actual statistical evidence because they’d rather pretend they’re poor. I think part of this has to do with the demonization of the rich by the left. Rich people are evil, so I can’t be rich because I’m not one of those bad 1%ers.

    A corollary to this is people who allow supposed “poor” Americans to justify their bad behavior through appeals to poverty. You hear the ridiculous argument, for example, that American inner cities have high crime because of how poor people are, but the average person in these supposedly poor areas is actually richer than the average person in Poland and various other Eastern European countries. Meanwhile, those countries have murder rates like 1/50th of what you see in Detroit.

    Having a skewed view of what wealth is allows Americans to cling to their comforting delusions and engage in facile arguments about American poverty which provably does not exist.

    1. Can’t wait to tell the bums living in the streets on the way home that they’re not really poor. Hopefully the road will be clear enough for me to flip my sunglasses down and laugh as I peel out after saying it.

      1. They’re panhandling alongside paved roads, aren’t they?

      2. I like to pay homeless people to throw fruit at other homeless people.

        And even legitimately homeless people in America are still wealthy on a global scale when huge percentages of the planet are living on like $3.00 a day. That’s like 20 minutes of panhandling in nice parts of the country. Here’s a dude who makes $15.00 an hour panhandling in Seattle. And his arguments pretty much prove my point about the skewed ideas Americans have about wealth:

        There are people that really believe people get rich panhandling. Like anything in life there are always those extreme examples but more often than not the people you see panhandling are not living the good life and I’ll tell you why.

        First let me explain how much money a panhandler can expect to make. When I’m panhandling I can expect to make between $15 to $30/hr. The average is closer to $15 than $30. Some days I have really good days. Some days I panhandle all day and barely make $60. Other days I make $10 in 2 hrs before I’m chased off by the police.

        I only make like $40,000 a year standing on street corners and begging for money! Woe is me!

        1. The panhandlers in Seattle really pissed me off, they all seem to be in their twenties and ablebodied.

          1. Oh, you should go to Santa Cruz.

        2. So he’s making a living wage? Must be nice!

        3. I’m not sure the people rooting through trash cans for food/recyclables in Inglewood are pulling down $40k a year. nor do I think they really care about people in Namibia living on $3/day when that amount won’t buy a bottle of water and a cup of soup in the US.

        4. “… more often than not the people you see panhandling are not living the good life and I’ll tell you why.”

          Sadly it is because the majority of them are mentally ill to the point where they can’t function, thus the homelessness.

      3. I have been around long enough to see that the US is visibly richer for everybody than it was, say, 30 years ago. When I was growing up (in a rust-belt inner city) it was common to see the poor kids looking grubby and wearing shitty hand-me-downs. You don’t see much of that anymore outside of Appalachia. Here in NYC even “poor” kids wear more expensive clothes than I do.

        1. I remember the early 90’s when junkers disappeared from the roads. I looked up one day and everyone seemed to have a new car.

          When I grew up maybe 1 in ten people had new cars, most were not so new, and two or three out of the ten had real junkers.

          1. Jeez, you should have seen the junker I learned to drive in. VW Rabbit that my older brother liked to tinker with. On any given day you wouldn’t know if it would actually start or not, depending on whatever repairs were currently in progress.

            1. Oh, and I should add my mom’s car was like this too. Especially in winter when you had to let it warm up for 20 minutes – assuming it started.

          2. Tell me about it… I taught myself to drive a “stick” at 13 on dad’s 71 Vega (in 1978). My first car in 1982 was a 73 VW bug that snowed through the glovebox in winter.

    2. “Having a skewed view of what wealth is allows Americans to cling to their comforting delusions and engage in facile arguments about American poverty which provably does not exist.”

      I think part of it has to do with television.

      That show that’s on reruns, The King of Queens? From what I can tell, the dude drives van delivering packages for UPS, and yet somehow, he can afford a million dollar home in NYC.

      Everybody on television is living a wealthy lifestyle–even the average people.

      Check this out.

      https://www.discover.com/ home-loans/blog/what-do-tv-homes-cost-in-real-life

      (space between / and home in the link…damn 50 character limit)

      Using that, the average house on TV might be a couple of million dollars. Like Krusty the Clown is Homer Simpson watching a funny version of himself on TV, we like to see wealthier versions of ourselves on television, as well. We think of the characters on TV as being just like us–but unlike us, they live in much more extravagant homes than the average American. I think it makes average Americans feel like they’re poorer than they should be.

      …even going back to the Bundy days, what shoe salesman could ever afford to make house payments? Even he was livin’ way better than he should.

      1. From what I can tell, the dude drives van delivering packages for UPS, and yet somehow, he can afford a million dollar home in NYC

        Based on union extortion, that’s actually possible. The unbelievable part was his character banging someone that looked like Leah Remini.

        1. I always assumed they inherited the house from Jerry Stiller.

          1. All that manzier money.

          2. The pilot has Stiller moving into their home after he burnt down his own.

            Why I remember that, I haven’t a clue.

            1. Christ Mulatto, how much King of Queens did you watch? Shit’s unhealthy.

              1. Well, it is always on late at night.

          3. Arthur burned down his house. That’s why he moved in with them.

            1. In addition to being a UPS driver, she is an executive assistant.

              So, obviously, they can afford a million dollar house in NYC.

              I guess that’s why he’s the King of Queens!

              All the shithead Teamsters that work for UPS should have million dollar homes in NYC! I’m sure your average delivery driver in San Diego watches that show and wonders why he isn’t living that way. It’s so unfair!

      2. …even going back to the Bundy days, what shoe salesman could ever afford to make house payments? Even he was livin’ way better than he should.

        They did seem to have a food security issue.

    3. Around here, there are people who cling to the idea of being poor as some kind of badge of honor.

      1. Part of it is it is impolite to brag, so if you are doing well you keep it to yourself, but poverty is seen as authentic for some reason.

        1. “Look how authentic I am with my brand new, lifted F-350, that I will never not drive on the highway.”

          1. That’s something that drives me nuts about rednecks. They live in a 30k trailer and drink an 80k truck.

            1. and drink an 80k truck.

              That is a lot of drinking!

              1. My my my, how the turns have tabled…damnit!

  12. Do I get to throw my wife’s income in there too? On my own, I’m in the top .11%. I knew there was something I liked about this country!

  13. The Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” features “What it’s like to be a part of the world’s richest 1 percent, in 15 incredible photos.”

    Wow – what a shitty set of photos.

    Half of them are not even of stuff out of reach of anyone not in the ‘1%’.

    Dude floating in a pool – yeah, rates at that hotel (without discounts) are 5-700 a night. Not a place I’ll be frequenting, but not out of reach even to me for a short stay or to a lot of mid-level execs at any time.

    Maids making up a guest room in Kenya – I’m pretty sure it doesn’t take a whole lot of money to hire a couple of housekeepers in Kenya.

    Ooooh, some little girl has a tiny little painted backdrop with curtains and its called her ‘home theater’.

    Some guys’ got a large house in a large open clearing in Ohio – not cheap, I’m sure, but not 1% expensive either.

    Opera du Monte Carlo – is mostly *funded* by a 1% but is open to the public and prices are pretty reasonable

    Shit man – rich people can afford *rhinoplasty*? Us proles just have to make do with nose jobs.

    1. From the article’s comments

      “Roma Hills:
      Classic “poor people” trying to live the rich lifestyle…. 3,000-8,000 square feet of mansion on 3,100-8,100 square feet of property…. lmao. The developer got his money!”

      No, no, no – the guys living in those large houses on tiny lots are part of the 1%!!111!!

      1. I never use my yard except for one foot deep garden. Besides wanting space away from nosy prying neighbors, why would I want all that extra space I have to maintain but not use?

        1. Garden parties, touch football, pinatas, grab ass, etc..,

          1. Much rather have an extra room customized for D&D games.

            1. I’ve never played. What time should I come over and in what attire?

              1. The attire is only for LARPing dear. Which unfortunately for me, there are no local groups.

                1. I’m sure there are some LAERP groups in the area.

                  1. I’m sure there are some LAERP groups in the area.

                    Yeah, but for those living in the mountains of West Virginia, virtual reality technology remains their only hope of ever getting laid by a hot Night Elf Warlock.

                2. The attire is only for LARPing dear. Which unfortunately for me, there are no local groups.

                  Well then I’ll just wear what I usually wear. A smoking jacket and cut off jean shorts.

                  1. A real “Florida man” starts with the Crocs…

          2. Horseshoes. What else?

        2. I, provisionally, agree with you. I like McMansions.

          But, if I were truly 1% rich, I would not have a 3000 sqft house on a 3100 sqft lot.

          I would have a 10,000 sqft house plus guesthouse, workshop, outbuildings, etc, on 640 (or more) acres.

        3. I tired of maintaining a large yard. I have a fenced in acre for the dogs and another half acre or so for a small garden and I planted oaks and walnuts on the rest. I was the only one who ever went there anyway and that was when I was mowing, so why not grow timber?

    2. “Maids making up a guest room in Kenya – I’m pretty sure it doesn’t take a whole lot of money to hire a couple of housekeepers in Kenya.”

      THEY SHOULD BE OUT CARRYING WATER ON THEIR HEADS OR FARMING ORGANIC YAMS

      1. mmmmmm – organic yams….

      2. mmmmmm – organic dysentery….

    3. Wow, I just checked it out too. I do not understand anything about this collection. Are we supposed to feel bad about the High Line? Is a legless man with a job on the Walk of Fame supposed to evoke something? The Hollywoo Sign….??

      Regarding that infinity pool: I just saw a pic of a friend in that very same pool. Her income is absolutely not in the top 1%.

      1. Its a $500 dollar a night hotel in a city that is famous for its high cost of living. For the *locals* that’s probably equivalent to dropping $150 – and from the pictures of the rooms they have the same quality as $150 a night buys you in most of the US.

    4. The pheasants in the back of the pickup because upland is so 1%.

      1. Hunting and pickup trucks are classic 1%.

        1. Yup. Nothing screams elite 1% like a 1993 Ford Ranger and an $8 blaze orange hat.

  14. I still deserve to have more stuff that I did not earn.

    1. You really do.

      *turns to the crowd*

      He really does!

    2. At least you do in The Wealthiest Country On Earth?.

      1. Finally, some people on this board who “get it.”

        Give it, richers!

        1. But, I also “get” that we’re all in it together, so there’s really no need to give.

  15. Yep. Most Americans, and American leftists in particular, really have no clue just how much most the world sucks. It’s one endless hellhole dictatorship after another. And in even most of the good countries, the standard of living is WAY below what we’re accustomed to here.

    American capitalism is the greatest creation in the history of mankind, and nothing else even comes close.

    1. The left won’t be satisfied until America is like the rest of the world. Poverty is so romantic, you know.

      1. Poverty for thee not for me!!

    2. When I was a kid, my parents used to take me to this place every week, where they’d teach like these…principles to live by. Some of them were pretty good.

      One of them went something like:

      “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

      It’s a pretty good principle! The idea is that it’s okay to want better things for yourself, but quite another to want to take things that belong to other people.

      Keeping that in mind really helps if you want to nip problems in the bud–but I gotta keep it real clear in my mind that there’s an important difference between, you know, things that belong to other people and things that belong to me.

      I don’t think leftists are very good at keeping those things in separate categories.

      1. That’s crazy judeo-christfag talk Ken!

      2. Morality is for suckers! Principles are for suckers! Let morality be dictated by the government! That way you can covet all day long and have government do your stealing for you! Sucker!

        1. The tenth is a pretty good one as commandments go, too–because it’s in addition to “Thou shalt not steal”.

          “Thou shalt not covet” if you think about it is like the commandment against socialism.

          It’s like before you even get to the point where the government steals the means of production, Moses is up there saying, “Let’s keep the coveting down to a minimum, alright”? It’s #10 on the list–God’s own hand…

          Instead of coveting that guy’s flock over there, maybe you get yourself a job, save your money, start your own flock–mkay? Now, wagon train, Ho!

          1. The thing about coveting is that it creates resentment. Resentment isn’t good for civil society. And what you said.

      3. Good ideas, but I have a little trouble with the wife thing.

    3. That is exactly right Mike M.

      The reason the left hates the greatest creation in the history of mankind is that it empowers too many people. They really do want us to be a shithole just like all of the other ones in the world, but people here have too much power to let that happen. The first step necessary in enslaving America is to destroy its economy.

  16. OT

    Maggie McNeill rips into some dipshit for pushing decrim for gay sex workers but not women.

    http://tinyurl.com/pr287cx

    many people who didn’t give a shit about the criminalization of sex work when it was women, our clients and our advertising venues being attacked, suddenly care very much now that they see the anti-sex machine is also going to be turned loose on the queer sex trade. And while I absolutely welcome these folks as allies, I’m not going to accept this kind of sexist, patronizing bullshit from queer boys who couldn’t be bothered to speak up for me and my sisters last week…

    Fuck your patronizing picket-fence queer bullshit. …Fuck your trying to co-opt our movement, which was already going on for forty fucking years before you deigned to fucking notice it. Stonewall was the fucking Stonewall of sex workers, you asshole; the riot that started the avalanche that gave gay amateurs their rights was started by professionals. And I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to remain silent while sleazy douchebags like you call for my body and my choices to be “regulated”…

    1. Fuck yeah! It is the same attitude that gay activists displayed when they argued FOR same-sex marriage, but AGAINST polygamy or against the right of adult siblings to get married. (BTW: I am not talking about the average gay who couldn’t care less about what others do in their personal life, like the average straight person!).

    2. Good on her. I’d normally saying castigating your allies isn’t productive, but the gay rights guys aren’t going to choose to have less sexual freedom just because you point out their hypocrisy. They care about themselves first and foremost, and they aren’t ever going to choose an equality argument that will result in them not being able to do what they want. So take their support, money, and political machine, but don’t let them get away with painting this as victimization because of their sexuality. Make sure everyone knows this time around that they don’t have an overarching principle, they only care because its interfering with them getting paid/their rocks off.

      I’m really pissed at their only my rights matter point lately. If you couldn’t tell.

      1. They’re just playing the long game. Less access to female sex workers means a higher likelihood of a horny and frustrated guy being only left with the option of sticking his dick in a gloryhole.

        1. That is amazingly….cynical.

          *applause*

        2. “Well, Dee. I think the real question is, why wouldn’t you want to have sex with someone you can’t see?”

        3. Ouch.

          Honestly, no amount of frustration would ever drive me to gay sex. I have nothing against people being gay but it holds zero interest for me. Actually it kinda puzzles me.

    3. And while I absolutely welcome these folks as allies, I’m not going to accept this kind of sexist, patronizing bullshit from queer boys who couldn’t be bothered to speak up for me and my sisters last week…

      Not sure if I pity stupid for assuming ‘tolerate’ and/or ‘equality’ meant what *she* thought they meant or because it sounds like she’s leaving the door open for it to happen again (and again, and again…).

    4. “I’m not going to accept this kind of sexist, patronizing bullshit from queer boys who couldn’t be bothered to speak up for me and my sisters last week.”

      This is what I was saying last week–and some regular got so upset about.

      Gay activists don’t give a shit about anybody but themselves. They’re not fighting for anybody’s rights. They’re mostly just fighting for gay privileges.

      They don’t care that sexworkers have a right to freelance. They’re offended that someone in the government was so obtuse that they didn’t respect gay privilege.

      Fuck your patronizing picket-fence queer bullshit.

      As an aside, that same regular commenter seemed to have some other issues as well. As if you’re supposed to like all gay people–because they’re gay. It’s not enough for someone to support gay rights and equal treatment under the law. No, you gotta like gay people–because they’re gay. And if you don’t like some gay person–because he’s gay–then you’re in the wrong.

      Equal rights under the law is one thing. Tolerance is another. Making it mandatory to like gay people for being gay is yet another. It’s entirely possible to support two of those things and not the third one.

  17. Tony i need help…please help a fellow human being and share your wealth

    1. Look dude, Tony only ‘share’ his good fortune at gunpoint.

      If Big Daddy Gubmint don’t make him then he don’t do *shit*.

      1. I thought he was caring and altruistic? Guess not 🙁

    2. If Tony works at all, he is almost certainly working for the government.

      Otherwise, how could anyone with such a shitty attitude hold down a job?

      Maybe he works for the Teamsters or something, but those guys don’t sit around on the internet every morning.

      1. Point being, that if he works for the government, then he doesn’t need to share his wealth with you. The important thing is that you’re already sharing your wealth with him.

        Tony is your tax dollars at work.

        1. I think he must get paid to post by the local Democratic Party outlet, hence the snarky comment above about “unpaid internet poodles” – at least Tony gets paid to be an internet poodle, amirite?

          I mean seriously, the guy spends a *lot* of time at a website he loudly claims to loathe. He can’t be doing anything productive with his days – how could he have time?

        2. Maybe he works for the Teamsters or something, but those guys don’t sit around on the internet every morning.

          To be fair I work at an internet company and I pull this shit all the time.

    3. Tony is only interested in sharing other people’s wealth. Isn’t that what he said? He isn’t interested in charity only in some national redistribution?

  18. OT: it is official China is in a War.

    With who is anyone’s guess

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..ly-reports

    1. THE MOLE PEOPLE!!!!

      STRIKING UNSEEN FROM UNDERGROUND!!!!

      IT JUST MAKES SENSE JET FUEL CAN’T MELT STEAL!!111

      1. “IT JUST MAKES SENSE JET FUEL CAN’T MELT STEAL!!111”

        Really?

        Chalking this up to truther paranoia?

        Really?

        1. I really hope you’re just kidding and realized that Agammamon’s comment was a joke, because you really need to chill the fuck out Corning.

          1. you really need to chill the fuck out

            Did reason commenters get bitten by cosmic gamaray spider?

            When did all you become telepathic empathics able to read my emotional state at any given time?

            I mean I was totally screaming at the top of my lungs pulling my hair out and about to toss my computer out the window….but how the hell could you have known that?

            1. Note I qualified it with ‘I hope you’re just kidding’ because the internet makes sarcasm difficult to convey. If you were, ignore.

              If not ‘chill the fuck out’ refers to your latest posts, which come off as irritable. The ‘Walker Ice-T incident’ made you look nuts.

              1. “The ‘Walker Ice-T incident’ made you look nuts.”

                Walker was being slime and I can say that with a mirthful smile on face.

                Weather he is malicious slime or naive slime is yet to be determined.

                But yeah join the Gilmore/Warty chorus if you feel it necessary. Be sure to bring it in response to every comment i make regardless of what i am talking about as well.

                Hell who knows maybe you armchair psychiatrists might stumble upon a diagnosis of real neurosis i might have and it will be helpful.

                1. Walker was being slime and I can say that with a mirthful smile on face.

                  He really, really wasn’t, and the ‘irritable’ part comes from the fact that you keep pretending he was. He make a joke, not even a distasteful one, and shared it because he thought it was funny. You got a wee bit too excited by it, but you’d think that commentators who’s spirit animal is a woodchopper wouldn’t get worked up over it.

                2. “the Gilmore/Warty chorus”

                  Really? because i was busting his balls a few weeks ago for being a dick to people. and vice versa.

                  People are busting your balls because you’re getting stupid and defensive and making shit out of nothing. You need to turn down your Gamergate chip-on-shoulder about 500%

        2. Really?

          I mean you post a link by saying china’s at war with an unknown opponent and I post an *obviously* not serious reply and you ‘chalk it up to truther paranoia?

          Really?

    2. Mon, 08/31/2015 – 14:17 | Creepy A. Cracker

      Sum Ting Wong.

    3. I’d really like to know more about this event, but Obama renamed a mountain.

    4. Isn’t this just the starting of the new Godzilla movie, but with industrial plants instead of nuclear power plants?

      Calling it, viral marketing for Pacific Rim 2.

      1. God i hope not.

        The first Pacific Rim was worse then two toxic bombs going off.

        The Strain is pretty good though. Best palette cleansing for 15+ years of sexy vampires imaginable.

        1. Pacific rim is a guilty pleasure of mine. I like giant fighting robots.

          1. Yeah, same here. Good fun. If you are not a libertarian, and thus have a conscience, it might even be a good guilty pleasure.

  19. And that’s what I love (loved?) about America. Someone like my old man who came from a dirt poor family of eight kids where they got their clothes from the Salvation Army. They didn’t even have running water. He dropped out of college to support his wife & kids but still managed to work his way up the ladder – invested his money, retired at age 55, and now lives in a house on Lake Michigan. And paid and sent three kids to college – one who became a doctor.

    1. Receptionist: Dr. Humungus will see you now.

      *walks in exam room to find large sweaty man in hokey mask*

      Me: You know what? I feel much better now. I’m just gonna leave now.

      1. Speak for yourself. I would love to have a large sweaty man in hokey mask examine me.

      2. 100% Cure-rate.

    2. Fuck you. He got that way because redistribution and roadz or something. HE DIDN’T BUILD THAT!
      And he had too many kids to boot.

    3. I’d hate to live in a world where that kind of success wasn’t possible.

      And I think everything the Democrats do makes that kind of success harder to achieve.

      1. Success creates inequality, and inequality isn’t fair. Thus success is bad.

    4. My grandfather grew up on a dirt farm in Catahoula parish. They scratched a living out of those pineywood hills. When he was 17 he and his brother left home to work on the riverboats because that was an easier life. Eventually he hitchhiked to Baton Rouge, attended LSU and became a surveyor, later a timber buyer, then a oil and timber man. He was able to buy all of his siblings portion of the family farm then bought more and more land. By the time he died he had worlds of timberland, three working oil wells and was well past being a millionaire.

      Like Ken, I would hate to live in a world where that isn’t possible, and unfortunately the majority of the world is just such a place. America really is exceptional, which reminds me, fuck Obama.

  20. Tony what is your email or home address? I will hit you up offline for the funds transfer to me.

    1. He is too busy writing his check to the US Treasury – gifts.

  21. The problem is people conflate wealth disparity with the very legitimate anger over those who acquire their wealth by virtue of their proximity to political power and the mechanisms of crony capitalism and when wealth is accumulated by, essentially, direct transfer from the public purse. I think it’s great when, say, a Steve Jobs gets phenomenally wealthy selling stuff people want. I don’t think it’s great when the banking cartel can siphon tax dollars off and into the pockets of the same people responsible for nearly destroying the economy. I don’t think it’s great when billionaire sports team owners have you and I to foot the bill for their sports stadiums. The problem for me is that there is a subset class of people who can not lose no matter how stupid their choices and decisions. The issue has never been wealth disparity, per se, the issue is a fundamentally corrupt system which is designed to protect the interests of the powerful and well connected. Like George Carlin said – there’s a big club and you and I aren’t in it. Doesn’t mean some of us can’t be winners at life, only that the deck is stacked.

    1. So give the federal government more money and more power…makes sense!!

  22. You’re in the top
    0.02%
    richest people in the world by income.

    That makes you the
    1,371,955th
    richest person on earth by income.

    1. High five!

      You and I got pretty much the same result, old bean! Hip, hip, and all that, eh wot?

      [Doffs top hat, taps side of nose]

      1. You two each make 400K a year after taxes…..

        What the flying fuck? Do you have government jobs or something?

  23. The article could have had a picture of someone driving a 2002 Nissan Sentra to shop at Family Dollar in Ames, Iowa, and been very true to the spirit of the “world’s richest 1 percent.”

    Actually they can’t. There isn’t a Family Dollar in Ames, IA (Source: Current Resident). Clean it up and do the research Reason! C’mon!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.