The Defining Whining of Our Time

Posted on December 6, 2013 11:00 am

So President Obama, straight off of loudly demonstrating he’s the most useless incompetent to ever run our stupid government, has declared that income inequality is the “defining challenge of our time.”

Anyone want to try to explain why income inequality in America is a problem at all?

Okay, let’s say you’re handed a million dollars, but someone next to you has a billion dollars he earned. Now, should your reaction be, “Wow! I just got a million dollars for doing nothing! I’m rich! Awesome!” Or should you whine like a little girl and cry, “No fair! That guy has so much more money than me! He should give me some of his money!”

That’s exactly what the situation is in America. No one starves. You can be poor and have a car, internet, cable, and a smartphone — many advantages even the richest didn’t have a hundred or so years ago. While there are people in other parts of the world working hard not to starve, you can do a mediocre effort in American and make obscene amounts of money. And what’s the reaction to all this luxury were given just for being born here?

“Wah! Someone has more than me! Unfair!”

I’ll tell you the defining challenge of our time: It’s not enough stupid, whiny hippies getting punched in their ungrateful faces. That’s our country’s problem. Believe me, whiners, you don’t want what you deserve, because it is much much less than you have now.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (14 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

12 Responses to “The Defining Whining of Our Time”

  1. Steve H says:

    Much, much less than you have now, except much more face punching. Those add up like BitCoins, so step right up, left-tards!

  2. KennyJ says:

    If you use this as your stump speech, you’d definitely get even more wailing from MSNBC than Romney’s 47% comments…but you’d also get more conservatives to vote for you than McCain did. Win-win!
    Also you can add in a part about how if you’re poor in america, on average you’ll still have a larger home than the average European (not average poor european, average of all europeans).

  3. Jimmy says:

    “Believe me, whiners, you don’t want what you deserve, because it is much much less than you have now.”

    The Republican Party will not utter a statement like that.

  4. Jack says:

    As a parent I am well-acquainted with ungratefulness. Whether it’s Christmas or birthdays or something else, there’s always at least one kid who thinks there’s too much inequality in the gifts received. “How come he gets [some awesome thing] while all I get is this [some crappy thing]. It’s not fair!” My children are under the impression that there’s a serious question about my judgment. There’s apparently some sort of higher authority that makes the rules about how generous I’m allowed to be to one child versus another. My kids consider my wife to be that higher authority BTW. When the “inequality card” is played, the only option seemingly on the table is redistribution. The beneficiary of the redistribution is not grateful about it. He’s smug. He’s sanctimonious. He’s self-righteous and supercilious, but never ever grateful. Meanwhile the victim of the redistribution is bitterly angry. You’ll never in a million years convince him he didn’t just get totally screwed….especially while he watches the apparent winner of this asinine little power-struggle performing an elaborate and gleeful—might I even say spiteful?—touchdown dance.

    I hope my kids grow out of that. It seems at though most liberals never did.

  5. Rayfan87 says:

    Jack, instead of giving them what they want have you tried hitting them?

  6. Marc says:

    income inequality as the defining challenge of our time…he is one speech away from stating “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

  7. Capitalist_B says:

    Other than jealousy being a powerful motivating force for petty human unhappiness, the irony is how hypocritical Obama is being. Let’s assume that income inequality is ‘the defining problem of our time’. If that’s the case, then we should remove policies that promote income inequality. Obamacare make insurance bankers rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. Obama’s track record on income inequality is horrific; it’s been heading completely the wrong way under his presidency. But to answer your question, why is income inequality bad? Because ordinary people can’t buy basic stuff like healthcare. That’s the genius of th Democrats; create a problem, then insist that you and only you can fix it.

  8. petetheelder says:

    The defining issue of our time is government debt.

    If that isn’t fixed then income inequality (among a crap ton of other issues) is going to be a whole lot worse when the money runs out for the welfare checks.

  9. Capitalist_B says:

    +1 (unless I can plus more than 1) to petetheelder — and how’s Obama’s track record on that issue and what effect will Obamacare have on it?!

  10. NO_MO_BAMA says:

    ….in case you were wondering why the unions needed to dumb down the education in this country.

    Income equality, regardless of what you do or don’t do to earn it = communism. I learned this in like 7th grade. and I’m only 51.

    How did we go from the cold war against COMMUNISM to this in 25 years??

  11. Capitalist_B says:

    No mo bama: that’s the bitter irony there too. Look up the ‘Gini Coefficient’ on say Wikipedia and you can see that more communist countries have worse wealth equality than capitalist ones. That’s why It’s ok to agree with Obama that wealth equality is actually a problem — he’s working so hard to make it worse!

  12. Doug says:

    First, you ask them if they would like any cheese with that whine… then you punch them in their monkey faces.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>