Protection of Wealth

You know, I just love it when there is scientific evidence showing that the rich are, by and large, pricks. Just what kind of dickweeds are the rich? They are very prone to stealing candy from babies, among other things. In fact, when researchers just made people feel comparatively wealthy, people were suddenly way more likely to cheat and lie. Apparently the rich feel entitled to the best so the bastards are in it to win it.

This certainly doesn’t mean all rich people are Mammon worshiping, self-serving, egotistical asshats … but those who are not goat blowers are the exception, not the rule. The people who are both good and rich must have had a rock solid moral center to survive the corrupting influence of wealth.

I believe that a good way to ascertain a person’s morals is to look at their actions. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give away a shitload to charity. Moreover, they don’t seem to have a revolving door for trophy wives, unlike the stingy twit Donald Trump. Kim and some of her fellow Kardashians were caught keeping 90% of the profits they were collecting “for charity”. Barak Obama gave away 13.6% of his income to charity last year, while Santorum, that holier-than-thou Mammon loving bigot, gave away 1 % of his wealth to good causes.  Easier to try to take away other people’s birth control than it is to give up some of your cash, huh? Your “Christianity” is represented by a dollar sign, Santorum, and I despise you for it.

But I digress.

Why do the rich, as a whole with the exception of a few individuals, feel free to lie or cheat and expect to get away with it? I agree with social scientists who theorize it is because the rich are protected from consequences. The most glaring example is the fact that no banksters have done any jail time for their evil shenanigans. But there are the lesser known facts that demonstrate the cocoon of safety the rich operate inside. For example, when a millionaire stops paying the bank for a mansion, the bank waited six months longer to start foreclosing on him/her as they would a middle-class guy/gal down on their luck. Or lets look at the fact that Paris Hilton gets busted for drugs and stays free, while poor people busted for drugs serve time in our corrupt profit-driven prisons.

I guess this is also why greedy, money-glutted pustules feel free to whine to reporters how much they hate the Occupy Wall Street movement and the 99%, because they don’t see why they should have to pay their fair share. If their entitlements are encroached on by even a fraction, the narcissistic twats go ballistic, and decry how mean everyone is being to them, bless their hearts.

There was a reason Jesus said it was easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven, and why Paul  proclaimed in his letter to Timothy that the love of money was the root of all evil. Wealthy people’s self absorbed asshatery has been disgusting for a long damn time, and good men have always called them on it.

I rather be middle-class and have to pinch my pennies than play for Team Mammon, y’all.

PS – Although  that arbiter of “truthiness” Faux News reports that Romney gives away almost 14% of his wealth to charity, and don’t mention Santorum at all, they maintain that Obama only gave 1% to charity … not the much larger amount reported by other reputable news sources.

About Betty Fokker

I'm a stay-at-home feminist mom.
This entry was posted in are you kidding me with this shit?, Jesus loves you but I think you are an asshat, Mammon, shit I think y'all should know. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Protection of Wealth

  1. Luna says:

    I want money and lots of it. So I can spread it around so joyously that it’s all gone by the time I’m gone. With enough to keep my kids protected for their lives.

    I have so many plans. Buying houses for people struggling to make rent, renting hotel rooms for the homeless (the intractable kind – you know the kind I mean), donating scads to food banks, tipping the cabbie a thousand bucks because I can, that sort of shit. :)

    • lunarmom says:

      Me too Luna, so many ideas and plans and great places all that money can be simply GIVEN to.

    • DK says:

      You took took the words right out of my mouth. That is something I’ve always wanted to do, hence the spending a buck for the Lotto every week, oh well. I mean really, how much do we need to live well, not that much, if we can be comfortable with 35-45K I think I can manage on 100K a year.

      I would love to help house poor students and families and fill food banks, since it seems to be so problematic for the ultra-wealthy.

    • Oh yeah! Like minded folks. My latest fantasy is a combination food bank, soup kitchen/hostel where I give classes in how to cook gourmet/restaurant quality meals on a food stamp budget, as well as shopping tips. Yeah, the $1000 tip is probably something I’d do too. I just need to go back to blowing $1/week on the lottery.

  2. Lila says:

    Romney’s “charity” is his mega-church, the prime activity of which is investing in shopping malls when they aren’t plotting for a Mormon to gain the presidency and ‘save’ the US Constitution. (source:

    Take away Willard’s 10% required tithe, and you’re left with 3%. Whoop-dee-doo.

  3. heubler says:

    The new boss of the company I work for, had a mounted elk’s head delivered to the shop and uncrated, for us all to admire. We haven’t had a raise in five years, and he knows it, yet his ego and hubris are such, that he thinks nothing of rubbing his employees noses in his privileged shit. Job creators my ass. Jobs — for his relatives.

  4. great blog!
    ms. mabel – quasi-SAHM

  5. Terry M. says:

    I am flippen impressed. I love your scathing comments it pleases me that someone else does not pull punches. Yeah our town is full of the holier than though money worshippers and their shit don’t stink. Yeah I think of what I would do with a boat load of loot and it would please other people as well and I would give it directly to them and not thru some so called 2,3,4 party charity rip off scheme. You made my day thank you.

  6. A.J. says:

    Martha Stewart did time for avoiding a $45,000 loss on stock she owned, and a Mississippi mother of two who committed a “fraud” of $4,367, and who later paid the money back, gets three years in federal prison because she lied in her application for – food stamps. Meanwhile, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank and their criminal employees, all having been repeatedly dragged into court for fraud in the billions of dollars and tanking a world-wide economy, has ever been forced to give back anything like a significant portion of their ill-gotten gains.

  7. mgardener says:

    I have, when things get tough financially, made a donation to charity. Just to remind myself that there are always people who have needs far greater then mine.
    Sometimes, not always, I have been rewarded by an unexpected windfall. But I give, because it is the right thing to do.

  8. blumarble says:

    Your last sentence: “…reported by other reputable news sources.” should read: “reported by reputable news sources.” Nothing reputable (or honest, credible, fair, etc) about Faux News!

  9. I would not list Buffet and Gates as some kind of hero. Buffet complains about his taxes being lower than his secretary’s. Well, he could put his money where his mouth is and do a Koch Brothers to change it. He’s not. Gate’s heads a company that was taken to court by the Fed’s over classifying employees as parttime. He lost. How they lay off regularly in order to meet the “letter of the law”.

    Time we stop holding up people such as these as being generous simply because they created a large foundation. That foundation money was avaliable because they missed the first and best form of charity: pay the help. Specifically, pay the help more than the market warrents…because they can.

    You want the ideal wealthy person who did not let fame and fortune turn them: Paul Newman.
    Look him up.

    If we want to change things, we need to do a much better job choosing our examples of what is expected and what can be.

    Otherwise, you are correct.

    • Betty Fokker says:

      You are correct … Newman would have been a MUCH better example. However, COMPARED to the other wealthy asshats in the US, I maintain that Gates and Buffett look good; albeit not heroic. They kind of suck up against Newman, tho. It’s all about the context I reckon.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s