Why Do Conservatives Defend / Protect The Super-Rich?

[PoliTalker]

I can understand why most of the super-rich would not want their own taxes raised. Some of those super-rich people are just plain greedy. They value money over everything else in life.

The thing that is kind of baffling to me as a liberal is why virtually all conservatives, even ones who are not super-rich, are so dead set against taxing the super-rich more.

Virtually all conservatives are NOT rich! So why do they protect the rich from higher taxes with everything they've got?

I don't get it. That one is hard do figure.

If a liberal says tax the super-rich, conservatives come up with all these creative reasons why that shouldn't happen.

We know not all conservatives are super-rich.

So why are the average conservatives protecting somebody who needs no protection?

Why protect or even defend the powerful?

They don't need your help.

And they are working against you.

Everything they do extracts your wealth away from you to give it to them.

All their investments are in companies that extract your wealth. Look at any product or service you buy. What you pay is maximized vs what you get for your money. And they keep tweaking it. Oh, they know how to squeeze you. They are constantly giving you less, and charging you more. Go pick up a half gallon of milk. If it seems a little lighter that's because it is. It used to be a half gallon, 64 oz. Check it out. You're paying the same or more, but now you are only getting 59 oz. Just one little trick among many. It's really the tip of the iceberg. They do that with everything. They are gonna nickel and dime you to death.

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

All cars used to come with a spare tire. Now they don't. It's an option on a lot of them. If it didn't need a radiator cap that would be an option too. The super-rich are at the top of the food chain. The super-rich owners of those big corporations get the benefit of all this cost-cutting, not you. They benefit from downsizing and offshoring. Taking away benefits, making insurance cost more. All of it makes them richer.

So why protect or defend them?

PSSSSST! (they don't need your help)

 

[StoneByStone]

Because they think one day they're going to be rich.

 

[iolo]

Because they think one day they're going to be rich.
View attachment 8590

It was, after all, the big selling point for emigration to America, and until about twenty years ago, you could make some sort of an (unconvincing) case for it, but I think large-scale brainwashing is more important. A lot of them really can't conceive of any other sort of society.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello StoneByStone,

Because they think one day they're going to be rich.

View attachment 8591

That works until mid life when you realize that your life is your life and it is not going to suddenly turn into the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

I guess by then most people are pretty set in their ways. They don't want to rethink that metric. So they just keep on protecting the powerful even as the powerful rip them off at every turn.

 

[PoliTalker]

Cheers iolo,

It was, after all, the big selling point for emigration to America, and until about twenty years ago, you could make some sort of an (unconvincing) case for it, but I think large-scale brainwashing is more important. A lot of them really can't conceive of any other sort of society.

Laziness?

It is easier to let others do your thinking for you.

 

[Cypress]

Why Do Conservatives Defend / Protect The Super-Rich?

For the exact same reason the Bolsheviks got a lot of the rural peasants to indirectly support the agenda of a small cadre of elitist, urban intellectual Bolshevik totalitarian dictators.

Because the Bolsheviks identified the source of the peasantry's grievance (kulaks, land owners, the gentry), made common cause with them, and allowed them to indulge their resentment and grievance.

Which is basically the same strategy Republicans and reactionairies employ: identifying the source of toothless hillbillies grievances (aka, uppity negros, Hispanics, immigrants, Muslims), giving the perception of making common cause with them, and allowing them the latitude to indulge their racial resentment and xenophobia (there are some very fine Nazis out there, folks!).


It is kind of s quid-pro-quo of sorts as far as I can tell.

 

[PoliTalker]

If they are blaming the wrong people for their ills, say immigrants, and they get their wall, and it doesn't really fix the job market or the drug problem, will they then rethink their reasoning?

Or is that too logical.

 

[Cypress]

If they are blaming the wrong people for their ills, say immigrants, and they get their wall, and it doesn't really fix the job market or the drug problem, will they then rethink their reasoning?

Or is that too logical.

Republicans, reactionaries, buck toothed hillbillies, and bible thumpers do not strike me as the type capable of reflection and learning lessons.

Some of the most enthusiastic supports of the invasion of Iraq on this forum, have never been able to muster the integrity to express regret for their support of that catastrophically bad decision; to admit liberal posters here had been right all along - and now it is 16 years after the fact!

I do not know if you visit rightwing blogs and rightwing news sites. But is chock full on stories about the evils of Islam, "invaders from the South", caravans of brown people of dubious intent, the impending cataclysm of encroaching Kenyan-Marxism, the horror of welfare moochers and the laziness of the lay-about darkies.

You know what you won't find there? Stories about the offshoring of jobs, the degradation and destruction of unions and labor rights, the re-engineering of the tax code to favor the affluent investor class and our corporate overlords.

The propaganda is pervasive and non-stop. And, if we are being honest, this propaganda is being directed towards people who are fundamentally not very smart and are easily manipulated.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

I can understand why most of the super-rich would not want their own taxes raised. Some of those super-rich people are just plain greedy. They value money over everything else in life.

The thing that is kind of baffling to me as a liberal is why virtually all conservatives, even ones who are not super-rich, are so dead set against taxing the super-rich more.

Virtually all conservatives are NOT rich! So why do they protect the rich from higher taxes with everything they've got?

I don't get it. That one is hard do figure.

If a liberal says tax the super-rich, conservatives come up with all these creative reasons why that shouldn't happen.

We know not all conservatives are super-rich.

So why are the average conservatives protecting somebody who needs no protection?

Why protect or even defend the powerful?

They don't need your help.

And they are working against you.

Everything they do extracts your wealth away from you to give it to them.

All their investments are in companies that extract your wealth. Look at any product or service you buy. What you pay is maximized vs what you get for your money. And they keep tweaking it. Oh, they know how to squeeze you. They are constantly giving you less, and charging you more. Go pick up a half gallon of milk. If it seems a little lighter that's because it is. It used to be a half gallon, 64 oz. Check it out. You're paying the same or more, but now you are only getting 59 oz. Just one little trick among many. It's really the tip of the iceberg. They do that with everything. They are gonna nickel and dime you to death.

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

All cars used to come with a spare tire. Now they don't. It's an option on a lot of them. If it didn't need a radiator cap that would be an option too. The super-rich are at the top of the food chain. The super-rich owners of those big corporations get the benefit of all this cost-cutting, not you. They benefit from downsizing and offshoring. Taking away benefits, making insurance cost more. All of it makes them richer.

So why protect or defend them?

PSSSSST! (they don't need your help)

Some of those super-rich people are just plain greedy. They value money over everything else in life.

Really? How do you know this? I'm sure "some" are but how many? Maybe 1%? Or 50%? How many is "some" and how would you know?
And how would you know they value money over everything else in life unless you somehow knew them personally? And are you going to make a judgement on ALL super-rich people based on a few "greedy" ones? I think that's called discrimination. Not a good look for a Liberal.

why virtually all conservatives, even ones who are not super-rich, are so dead set against taxing the super-rich more.

Again, how do you know this? Is there a valid poll out there that says "virtually ALL Conservatives" feel that way?
And what is your definition of "super-rich"?
Making over ten million dollars a year? A hundred million?
Having a net worth of ten million dollars?
What is your definition of "super-rich"? It's hard to debate your point without knowing what you mean.

Why protect or even defend the powerful?

I thought we were talking about the "super-rich". Not the powerful? How do people who make $10 million/year have power over others?
I know a few people who are worth > $10 million. They are not powerful. They have no power over me or others.
Who's defending or protecting them? And wealthy people do pay taxes. What's the income tax rate for someone who makes $10 million/year?
Isn't it like 22%? Wouldn't that mean they pay $2.2 million a year in taxes? That's kinda a lot. Now it's true that they usually take advantage of the tax laws to mitigate their taxes but they're just applying the laws. They're not doing anything illegal. If you want to change something, change the tax laws to reduce the loopholes.

And they are working against you. Everything they do extracts your wealth away from you to give it to them.

Really? How so? Many of them own business that hire people and provide good benefits for them like healthcare and retirement plans. And they do it a lot more efficiently than the government could ever do. How are they "extracting wealth" away from me or any others?

All their investments are in companies that extract your wealth.

What? How do you know what the "super-rich" invest in? Isn't that private information? I don't know where you're getting this but I know a lot of companies that offer stock to people to SHARE in the wealth of their companies? I've made a good retirement nest egg by investing in these companies over the course of 30 years. I'm glad there are "super-rich" people that work hard to build these successful companies that I can invest in and become rich myself. That's the American Way. That's the way it should be. What the hell's wrong with that?

 

[evince]

I can understand why most of the super-rich would not want their own taxes raised. Some of those super-rich people are just plain greedy. They value money over everything else in life.

The thing that is kind of baffling to me as a liberal is why virtually all conservatives, even ones who are not super-rich, are so dead set against taxing the super-rich more.

Virtually all conservatives are NOT rich! So why do they protect the rich from higher taxes with everything they've got?

I don't get it. That one is hard do figure.

If a liberal says tax the super-rich, conservatives come up with all these creative reasons why that shouldn't happen.

We know not all conservatives are super-rich.

So why are the average conservatives protecting somebody who needs no protection?

Why protect or even defend the powerful?

They don't need your help.

And they are working against you.

Everything they do extracts your wealth away from you to give it to them.

All their investments are in companies that extract your wealth. Look at any product or service you buy. What you pay is maximized vs what you get for your money. And they keep tweaking it. Oh, they know how to squeeze you. They are constantly giving you less, and charging you more. Go pick up a half gallon of milk. If it seems a little lighter that's because it is. It used to be a half gallon, 64 oz. Check it out. You're paying the same or more, but now you are only getting 59 oz. Just one little trick among many. It's really the tip of the iceberg. They do that with everything. They are gonna nickel and dime you to death.

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

All cars used to come with a spare tire. Now they don't. It's an option on a lot of them. If it didn't need a radiator cap that would be an option too. The super-rich are at the top of the food chain. The super-rich owners of those big corporations get the benefit of all this cost-cutting, not you. They benefit from downsizing and offshoring. Taking away benefits, making insurance cost more. All of it makes them richer.

So why protect or defend them?

PSSSSST! (they don't need your help)

fox brain snooze lies them into it

 

[evince]

fox was created BECAUSE the R party was getting killed by facts

 

[Ross Dolan]

For the exact same reason the Bolsheviks got a lot of the rural peasants to indirectly support the agenda of a small cadre of elitist, urban intellectual Bolshevik totalitarian dictators.

Because the Bolsheviks identified the source of the peasantry's grievance (kulaks, land owners, the gentry), made common cause with them, and allowed them to indulge their resentment and grievance.

Which is basically the same strategy Republicans and reactionairies employ: identifying the source of toothless hillbillies grievances (aka, uppity negros, Hispanics, immigrants, Muslims), giving the perception of making common cause with them, and allowing them the latitude to indulge their racial resentment and xenophobia (there are some very fine Nazis out there, folks!).


It is kind of s quid-pro-quo of sorts as far as I can tell.

Or...on a similar note...why the poor white folk of the south during Civil War days fought for the right of the wealthy to own slaves to do the work they should have been paying those "poor white folk" to do.

Maybe the are just STUPID! Stupid people willing to steady the hand of others who are trying to slit their throats.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Cypress,

Republicans, reactionaries, buck toothed hillbillies, and bible thumpers do not strike me as the type capable of reflection and learning lessons.

Some of the most enthusiastic supports of the invasion of Iraq on this forum, have never been able to muster the integrity to express regret for their support of that catastrophically bad decision; to admit liberal posters here had been right all along - and now it is 16 years after the fact!

I do not know if you visit rightwing blogs and rightwing news sites. But is chock full on stories about the evils of Islam, "invaders from the South", caravans of brown people of dubious intent, the impending cataclysm of encroaching Kenyan-Marxism, the horror of welfare moochers and the laziness of the lay-about darkies.

You know what you won't find there? Stories about the offshoring of jobs, the degradation and destruction of unions and labor rights, the re-engineering of the tax code to favor the affluent investor class and our corporate overlords.

The propaganda is pervasive and non-stop. And, if we are being honest, this propaganda is being directed towards people who are fundamentally not very smart and are easily manipulated.

I know there are dumb people who fall for the shtick. But I don't think falling for it automatically means somebody is dumb. These are our friends, neighbors and fellow citizens. Just like the people who reject Trump, they are doing what they really think is the best thing from their perspective. We who know better can see it is a stupid mistake to believe in President Trump. But I also know I have made plenty of stupid mistakes in my life, too. But still, even though I sometimes make stupid mistakes, I am intelligent and successful. I even excel at some things to expert level. There are Trump supporters who can say the same thing. They are not all stupid. That's too easy. Part of the problem with our politics is it's so complicated. We are constantly trying to boil everything down to a soundbyte, but that is not really representative of the real truth.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello DonaldvoTrumpovich,

Really? How do you know this? [Some of those super-rich people are just plain greedy. ] I'm sure "some" are but how many? Maybe 1%? Or 50%? How many is "some" and how would you know?

I didn't say I knew the exact proportion but as you imply, some people in general are greedy so it only stands to reason that some of the super-rich are. It also stands to reason that the greedy usually find a way to get what they are after. It is also logical that of the people who have a lot, a certain proportion of them got what they have because they are greedy and found a way to get it.

And how would you know they value money over everything else in life unless you somehow knew them personally?

Some of them I either know or I know people who know them who have reflected how they got what they have. I have also learned how one particular very greedy and immoral person got his wealth. President Trump first inherited $480 million of dirty money his father ripped off the government for, and then invested in some crooked schemes to run it up to $3.5 billion. Sadly, along the way he went bankrupt several times, lost a lot of it, and actually would have come out much better if he had just stayed on the golf course and invested the original amount in the index based funds and left it there until now. Every day he worked screwing people and it was all really for nothing. He'd be richer if he was just nice and wise.

And are you going to make a judgement on ALL super-rich people based on a few "greedy" ones?

No, I wouldn't do that. Just as I don't automatically believe all Trump supporters are stupid, I don't believe all super-rich are greedy.

I think that's called discrimination. Not a good look for a Liberal.

I don't think that looks good on anybody so I try not to do that. I would hope all liberals wouldn't either, but once again, stereotyping is dangerous. I know there are greedy hateful liberals too.

Again, how do you know this? [why virtually all conservatives, even ones who are not super-rich, are so dead set against taxing the super-rich more. ] Is there a valid poll out there that says "virtually ALL Conservatives" feel that way?

That's what I get from talking to people and reading posts here.

And what is your definition of "super-rich"?

I kind of like Warren's breakpoint for the new wealth tax. $50 million net worth.

"Why protect or even defend the powerful? "

I thought we were talking about the "super-rich". Not the powerful?

Big money = power in the DC Swamp. That allows one to get things done. The price depends on what you want done.

How do people who make $10 million/year have power over others?

They would have access to affluent country clubs and the ability to become acquainted with elected officials. But I don't think they would have a lot of pull at that level. They would be able to get a foot in the door though, have the ear of decision-makers, if only briefly.

I know a few people who are worth > $10 million. They are not powerful. They have no power over me or others.

They would not be as powerful as somebody with, say, net worth of $100 million, no.

Who's defending or protecting them?

Conservatives who have closer to median net worth but still refuse to tax only people with $50 million.

And wealthy people do pay taxes. What's the income tax rate for someone who makes $10 million/year?
Isn't it like 22%?

That would be the income rate if it's earned income. Capital gains is less. One could earn up to $425,800 in capital gains and pay just 15% tax on that. For amounts over that it bumps to 20%. If it was earned income in a paycheck, like you worked for it, then it's taxed at 24%. Working for a paycheck is punished.

Wouldn't that mean they pay $2.2 million a year in taxes?

Actually it would be more like $2.4 million but that's only if they worked for it and it is taxed at 24%. If they flipped some stocks or assets they would only have to pay $2 million. (actually less, because that rate only kicks in on amounts over $426K.)

That's kinda a lot.

Seems like a lot to those who don't have it. It's just a number. And the amount they are keeping is far larger than the tax. Back when America was great, the tax figure was larger.

" they are working against you. Everything they do extracts your wealth away from you to give it to them. "

Really? How so?

I already explained that. They are usually invested in the big corporations which are dedicated to sucking every bit of wealth they can out of as many pockets as possible. And they are very efficient at it.

Many of them own business that hire people and provide good benefits for them like healthcare and retirement plans.

And if that is the market for that type of work they would not get good workers if they didn't do those things. But it's good that they do.

And they do it a lot more efficiently than the government could ever do.

That's debatable. It is a conservative myth that 'government can't do anything right.' Such overly broad statements are unproveable, so they are not rules or absolutes. Just myths which have been repeated so much that some people take them for fact.

How are they "extracting wealth" away from me or any others?

That's the whole point of capitalism. Capitalists seek wealth. They create profit-generators and continually tweak them to improve efficiency at wealth extraction, always improving the model, always looking for new creative ways to separate wealth from those who possess it, to be gathered for the owners of the businesses.

"All their investments are in companies that extract your wealth."

What? How do you know what the "super-rich" invest in?

Over 50% of all stocks and securities are owned by the super-wealthy.

Isn't that private information? I don't know where you're getting this but I know a lot of companies that offer stock to people to SHARE in the wealth of their companies?

What percentage of the company ownership is actually issued to workers in this way?

I've made a good retirement nest egg by investing in these companies over the course of 30 years. I'm glad there are "super-rich" people that work hard to build these successful companies that I can invest in and become rich myself. That's the American Way. That's the way it should be. What the hell's wrong with that?

Nothing. I do the same. With a bit of guilt because I know some of these big corporations are treating workers and customers badly in many cases, and disregarding the environment. I used to try to avoid investing in certain sectors but I can't really find any selected funds to match my ideology. If you want an index-based fund then you have to accept that some of your money is supporting immoral business. Of course at the level of most middle class investors it's not enough stock to hurt the immoral corporations at all if some chose not to invest on moral grounds. (I say immoral corporations to differentiate them from other corporations one does not considert immoral) And besides. The stock you buy doesn't give money to that company unless it is new shares. If you're just buying pre-owned shares, your money is going to whomever owned that share before you did.

Some of that guilt causes me to want to voice my concern that this system is not good to everybody. Those of us with a bit of wealth are fine and well. Those who can't save and thus can't invest are the ones being ripped off. I don't think it is necessary to rip people off to earn an honest buck. I happen to think the concept of capitalism can work in a positive way to benefit everybody. Unregulated capitalism would never do that, but I think there is room for lots of regulation to harness the great innovative power of capitalism and use it to promote the General Welfare, not just that of the privileged.

Part of wealth extraction is using big money to pay for PR which nudges conservatives to protect and defend the super-rich from increased taxation. As if there is something wrong with progressive taxation. As if there is something wrong with a government pulling in enough revenue to pay for all the government does for us. There isn't. We can let the budget deficit grow large during a recession. That's OK then. It's unavoidable then. But when the economy is good, that's when responsible budgeting reduces the deficit with added taxation on the super-rich.

 

[Joe Capitalist]

Hello DonaldvoTrumpovich,

I didn't say I knew the exact proportion but as you imply, some people in general are greedy so it only stands to reason that some of the super-rich are. It also stands to reason that the greedy usually find a way to get what they are after. It is also logical that of the people who have a lot, a certain proportion of them got what they have because they are greedy and found a way to get it.

Some of them I either know or I know people who know them who have reflected how they got what they have. I have also learned how one particular very greedy and immoral person got his wealth. President Trump first inherited $480 million of dirty money his father ripped off the government for, and then invested in some crooked schemes to run it up to $3.5 billion. Sadly, along the way he went bankrupt several times, lost a lot of it, and actually would have come out much better if he had just stayed on the golf course and invested the original amount in the index based funds and left it there until now. Every day he worked screwing people and it was all really for nothing. He'd be richer if he was just nice and wise.

No, I wouldn't do that. Just as I don't automatically believe all Trump supporters are stupid, I don't believe all super-rich are greedy.

I don't think that looks good on anybody so I try not to do that. I would hope all liberals wouldn't either, but once again, stereotyping is dangerous. I know there are greedy hateful liberals too.


That's what I get from talking to people and reading posts here.

I kind of like Warren's breakpoint for the new wealth tax. $50 million net worth.

"Why protect or even defend the powerful? "

Big money = power in the DC Swamp. That allows one to get things done. The price depends on what you want done.

They would have access to affluent country clubs and the ability to become acquainted with elected officials. But I don't think they would have a lot of pull at that level. They would be able to get a foot in the door though, have the ear of decision-makers, if only briefly.

They would not be as powerful as somebody with, say, net worth of $100 million, no.

Conservatives who have closer to median net worth but still refuse to tax only people with $50 million.

That would be the income rate if it's earned income. Capital gains is less. One could earn up to $425,800 in capital gains and pay just 15% tax on that. For amounts over that it bumps to 20%. If it was earned income in a paycheck, like you worked for it, then it's taxed at 24%. Working for a paycheck is punished.

Actually it would be more like $2.4 million but that's only if they worked for it and it is taxed at 24%. If they flipped some stocks or assets they would only have to pay $2 million. (actually less, because that rate only kicks in on amounts over $426K.)

Seems like a lot to those who don't have it. It's just a number. And the amount they are keeping is far larger than the tax. Back when America was great, the tax figure was larger.

" they are working against you. Everything they do extracts your wealth away from you to give it to them. "

I already explained that. They are usually invested in the big corporations which are dedicated to sucking every bit of wealth they can out of as many pockets as possible. And they are very efficient at it.

And if that is the market for that type of work they would not get good workers if they didn't do those things. But it's good that they do.

That's debatable. It is a conservative myth that 'government can't do anything right.' Such overly broad statements are unproveable, so they are not rules or absolutes. Just myths which have been repeated so much that some people take them for fact.

That's the whole point of capitalism. Capitalists seek wealth. They create profit-generators and continually tweak them to improve efficiency at wealth extraction, always improving the model, always looking for new creative ways to separate wealth from those who possess it, to be gathered for the owners of the businesses.

"All their investments are in companies that extract your wealth."

Over 50% of all stocks and securities are owned by the super-wealthy.

What percentage of the company ownership is actually issued to workers in this way?

Nothing. I do the same. With a bit of guilt because I know some of these big corporations are treating workers and customers badly in many cases, and disregarding the environment. I used to try to avoid investing in certain sectors but I can't really find any selected funds to match my ideology. If you want an index-based fund then you have to accept that some of your money is supporting immoral business. Of course at the level of most middle class investors it's not enough stock to hurt the immoral corporations at all if some chose not to invest on moral grounds. (I say immoral corporations to differentiate them from other corporations one does not considert immoral) And besides. The stock you buy doesn't give money to that company unless it is new shares. If you're just buying pre-owned shares, your money is going to whomever owned that share before you did.

Some of that guilt causes me to want to voice my concern that this system is not good to everybody. Those of us with a bit of wealth are fine and well. Those who can't save and thus can't invest are the ones being ripped off. I don't think it is necessary to rip people off to earn an honest buck. I happen to think the concept of capitalism can work in a positive way to benefit everybody. Unregulated capitalism would never do that, but I think there is room for lots of regulation to harness the great innovative power of capitalism and use it to promote the General Welfare, not just that of the privileged.

Part of wealth extraction is using big money to pay for PR which nudges conservatives to protect and defend the super-rich from increased taxation. As if there is something wrong with progressive taxation. As if there is something wrong with a government pulling in enough revenue to pay for all the government does for us. There isn't. We can let the budget deficit grow large during a recession. That's OK then. It's unavoidable then. But when the economy is good, that's when responsible budgeting reduces the deficit with added taxation on the super-rich.

Whew! So much to rebut. Where do I find the time?

I didn't say I knew the exact proportion but as you imply, some people in general are greedy so it only stands to reason that some of the super-rich are. It also stands to reason that the greedy usually find a way to get what they are after. It is also logical that of the people who have a lot, a certain proportion of them got what they have because they are greedy and found a way to get it.

Some? A certain portion? Ok, so why don't we just say that some Muslims are terrorists. Or how about some Asians are bad drivers. Or a certain proportion of Hispanics are drug dealers. Or some old white people are racists. Is that okay with you as well?

Yes, all of that is true but if you're saying it to try to make a point, it's disingenuous.
And you seem to be confusing greed with ambition. Why do you resent "The Super Rich" so much. And don't say you don't because it's obvious to everyone but you apparently that you in fact do. You seem to want to believe that they are greedy, that they stepped on everyone else to get to the top. Does that let you hate them more believing that?

Some of them I either know or I know people who know them who have reflected how they got what they have.

So, either you know a few wealthy people who are greedy (what, maybe 10? 20?) or you "heard" it second hand from others. That's a pretty small sample size to make a judgement on hundreds of thousands of Americans. It's called being prejudiced and not a good look for a liberal.

That's what I get from talking to people and reading posts here.

Well, you need to get out more and stop reaching to conclusions based on very little evidence just because the conclusion fits neatly in your liberal narrative.

They would have access to affluent country clubs and the ability to become acquainted with elected officials.

And you know this how? Do you go to these country clubs and overhear the millionaires talking to elected officials or is this just another one of your "hunches"?

Actually it would be more like $2.4 million but that's only if they worked for it and it is taxed at 24%.

Huh? How many millionaires didn't work for their wealth? Give me a percentage. Why do you want to assume that millionaires are greedy or didn't work for their wealth? Does that make it easier for you to hate them? I think, subconsciously for you, it does.

They are usually invested in the big corporations which are dedicated to sucking every bit of wealth they can out of as many pockets as possible.

There you go again with the hate. No corporation is "sucking every bit of wealth" out of others. That's really absurd. Do you even know how capitalism works. Nobody is forcing people to buy a company's products. If a company over-charges for products or makes a bad product, people don't buy them and the company goes out of business. Nobody's sucking anything out of anybody. No, you don't hate the wealthy. HA!!!

It is a conservative myth that 'government can't do anything right.' Such overly broad statements are unproveable, so they are not rules or absolutes. Just myths which have been repeated so much that some people take them for fact.

I never said "the government can't do anything right" and I doubt the majority of conservatives believe that. You're going Strawman on me again, PoliTaker. Changing the argument to make my point look bad. If the Government did things like private industry, they wouldn't be $21 trillion in debt, my friend. And that's very provable. Again, you just want to believe the government works as good as private industry because it fits your "liberal" narrative. Not because it's true.

That's the whole point of capitalism. Capitalists seek wealth. They create profit-generators and continually tweak them to improve efficiency at wealth extraction, always improving the model, always looking for new creative ways to separate wealth from those who possess it, to be gathered for the owners of the businesses.

Once again, your argument is flawed. Capitalists seek profit. Profit comes before wealth. And wealth is the reward for being successful. It's not evil to be wealthy. It's not sinful to be wealthy.
Always looking for new creative ways to separate wealth from those who possess it? You make it sound like it's stealing.
What you should say is "Capitalists are always looking to develop new products and services to provide for people who want to purchase them".

Over 50% of all stocks and securities are owned by the super-wealthy.

So what? If you're super-wealthy, you're probably going to own more of everything than those that aren't. Is that wrong? Are you jealous? Is that why you hate them so much?

big corporations are treating workers and customers badly

Okay, give me the names of some of these corporations that are "treating workers and customers badly" and give some examples of what they do.
Why? Because I'm not going to believe it just because you say it. In fact, I think you make too many assumptions and jump to too many conclusions with little evidence.

There are government agencies that treat workers and customers badly. Have you ever called a Social Security office?
Once again, you so badly want to believe that the super-rich and corporations are greedy, bad, evil when maybe only a small percentage are. I hope you don't draw similar conclusions towards ethnic groups.

Those who can't save and thus can't invest are the ones being ripped off. I don't think it is necessary to rip people off to earn an honest buck.

There are plenty of stocks that cost less than $10. Anybody with $10 can invest. My Father-in-Law, who was a Greek immigrant owned a shop for 30 years selling doughnuts and sandwiches near a subway station. He invested in the stock market, put his three children through college (one through medical school) and died with a 3.5 million net worth. His socio-economic status was never higher than middle-class. So, don't tell me that there are those "who can't save or invest are being ripped off". Ripped off implies stealing and nobody's stealing from them. It's a liberal myth that you've apparently bought into.

 

[Yurt]

For the exact same reason the Bolsheviks got a lot of the rural peasants to indirectly support the agenda of a small cadre of elitist, urban intellectual Bolshevik totalitarian dictators.

Because the Bolsheviks identified the source of the peasantry's grievance (kulaks, land owners, the gentry), made common cause with them, and allowed them to indulge their resentment and grievance.

Which is basically the same strategy Republicans and reactionairies employ: identifying the source of toothless hillbillies grievances (aka, uppity negros, Hispanics, immigrants, Muslims), giving the perception of making common cause with them, and allowing them the latitude to indulge their racial resentment and xenophobia (there are some very fine Nazis out there, folks!).


It is kind of s quid-pro-quo of sorts as far as I can tell.

You are such a bigoted asshole.

 

[Sirthinksalot]

Hi Politalker,

I abbreviated your OP for brevity, I hope you don't mind.

Why Do Conservatives Defend / Protect The Super-Rich?

I don't envy people who are more successful than I am and I don't feel entitled to what they have. I disagree with your contention that wealthy people "extract my (or anyone else's) wealth". People who pay for a good or service do so voluntarily and if a good or service is a "rip off" free markets allow competition to step in and provide the same, at a better value. I cannot agree with the premise that people who are successful should have their wealth confiscated and given to others. We already have a progressive tax system whereby people at the top pay the lions share of taxes. Many at the bottom rungs pay no federal income taxes. The wealthy already provide the majority of tax revenues. Why isn't that good enough for you?

 

[Nordberg]

The wealth gap is worse than during the Gilded Age. It has been a long ,long time working the system by the wealthy to set the system up to their advantage, They even control the news and tell you the illegals and poor people are taking your money. And you idiots buy that. Amazing. They have set up the tax system to their advantage. They have set the laws up to help them. The politicians work for them too. But keep watching that poor person. That poor person is cheating you. Look to the super wealthy like Trump to solve your poblems.

 

[Sirthinksalot]

The wealth gap is worse than during the Gilded Age. It has been a long ,long time working the system by the wealthy to set the system up to their advantage, They even control the news and tell you the illegals and poor people are taking your money. And you idiots buy that. Amazing. They have set up the tax system to their advantage. They have set the laws up to help them. The politicians work for them too. But keep watching that poor person. That poor person is cheating you. Look to the super wealthy like Trump to solve your poblems.

The so called "wealth gap" is a bunch of nonsense. If you've got enough to eat, a place to live, a vehicle, a cell phone, etc. what do you care if someone else has more?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Conservatives know that what leftists are really after is the middle class (Karl Marx's most hated enemy). The property rights and due process of the wealthy are a gateway to our own.