Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

READER'S POST #17 - Are Celebrities Stupid, or do They Think We Are?

By: 32slim32

I saw where Cher made this tweet about Mitt Romney:

“I Feel if he [0bama] doesn't get all his DUCKS IN A ROW we'll b forced 2 listen 2Uncaring Richy Rich! The whitest man in MAGIC UNDERWEAR in the WH”

That is just priceless, Cher calling Romney Richey Rich. While Romney is worth $250 Million, Cher is worth $305 Million. Pot meet kettle.  I’m not even going to touch that “whitest man in magic underwear” thing.  By the way, what is Magic Underwear and would it be better if he were the blackest or brownest man in magic underwear?

Not too long ago the $400 Million man, David Letterman, joked about Romney spending the weekend climbing to the top of his money and back.

Jon Stewart mocked Romney and was outraged that Romney made $57,000 per day. Apparently $41,000 per day is a much more acceptable level of income since that is what Jon makes.

First, I don’t care how much a private citizen makes. It is none of my concern. However, I get sick to death of hearing these celebrity stooges go on and on about Romney’s wealth (or anyone else as far as that goes) when some of them are richer than him.

Check out the charts below showing their Net Worth and Annual Income (click each image for a pop-out graphic). 

All data for Net Worth and Annual Income came from except for Romney and Cher’s Annual Income which I obtained at:

- Cher received $60 Million over 3 years for performing 200 times (67 days per year) at Caesar’s Palace from 2008 – 2011.

Mitt Romney:

While Jon Stewart is the least wealthy of the group, I believe his $80 Million net worth should be able to support him the rest of his life.  Another notable thing to mention; Romney, Cher and Letterman are all about the same age while Jon Stewart is younger. At $15 Million per year it won’t be too long before he is in the Hundred Millionaire’s Club.

Jon Stewart feels that Mitt Romney earning $57,000 per day is outrageous, while he earns $41,000 per day. I wonder how he feels about David Letterman pulling in nearly $137,000 per day. I’m sure that since Letterman came by it honestly, you know doing a one hour TV show; it’s all good with Jonny boy.

These clowns love to talk about how much money other people have or how much they make yet they don’t really like to talk about their money that much. Why is that? Maybe because it’s none of our business, the same way other people’s money is none of their business.  For instance, Cher when talking about her $20 Million per year (for only 67 days work…67 days of 90 minutes per day) contract she said, "I know it's a lot, but I don't care. If it's a lot, if someone says, 'ooh, it's a lot,' OK. Fine. It must be a lot.”

Huh, “I know it’s a lot but I don’t care”? Uh, Cher $305 Million is a lot and I’m sure you don’t care but that is more than Mitt Romney’s $250 Million. Are you stupid or do you think we are?  How is it that your riches and great wealth are just fine and dandy but somehow a guy with $55 Million LESS than you is Richey Rich. How exactly does that work Cher?  Are you just a middle class person that just happens to be worth $305 Million? How stupid are you; or how stupid do you think we are? You do realize that you have been a millionaire for over 40 years, right? Seriously, Cher, are you that stupid or do you think we are?

I would also bet you a dollar to a dozen donuts (Dunkin Donuts, the powdered chocolate cream filled ones) that Letterman, Cher and Stewart all pay a team of lawyers and accountants to make sure that they don’t pay one red cent more than they have to and somehow that is their “fair share” while anyone else using the same deductions they use (if they aren’t a liberal, progressive, socialist, and/or communist) is a tax cheating greedy crook.  How exactly does that work?

Like I said, I don’t begrudge these morons for making millions of dollars per year and being worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but, don’t go sit on your $300 Million or $400 Million nest egg and bust the chops of a guy sitting on a $250 Million nest egg.  Also, don’t give me some crap about how horrific one guy making $20 Million a year is while you are cashing your $15 Million a year paycheck.

To put it into perspective, Jon Stewart (the least paid and least wealthy of our discussion) makes $15 million per year. Most leftists are outraged that the average CEO of Fortune 500 companies (the top 1% of the top 1% of corporations) makes an average Income of $12.94 Million.  That’s right Stewart makes $2 Million more per year but the evil CEO (who works more than an hour a day…unlike Jon) is the evil greedy person. 

What do you think? Are these imbecile celebrities stupid and unaware of their actual net worth or do they think we are all stupid mindless sheep? Or, are they just pandering to their stupid mindless sheep followers?

Disclaimer from The Elephant in the RoomThe article posted above is the work of a blog reader, not an owner of the blog. In promoting an open forum blog, and believing that the passing of information is the reason we exist, we happily post most readers' work with little editing. While the article does appear on our blog, the owners of The Elephant in the Room did not write this article, and posting this article on our blog does not imply endorsement of the ideas and opinions expressed in the article. If you would like us to post your work, check out our Reader's Post page here ( or email us at 


  1. blah blah blah. can you breathe? or are you puffin on mitt so much that you can't? this is all just your cryig that obama is going to in. you are trying to distract away from mittens and his haircut. good luck

    obama - biden 2012

  2. DO you think mittens would do any better?

    Ron Paul 2012

  3. So it is hating the rich just for having money, and not how they made it, or if they would pay their fair share if called upon. Let's kill all the comedians and put you in charge. I don't think so.

    1. If I may interject:

      1. What do you mean by "how" they made it? Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford Motor company makes $18 mil per year. He turned that company away from bankruptcy, saved 340,000 jobs, and made many workers, managers, and executives wealthier. He also put forth some of the best cars on the road. He has an experience, education, and background that most people aren't even close to. To me, he is worth $18 mil per year. No one else could come in and do that job, so Ford had to pay him to get him.

      2. "How" they made their money? Is that your business? My business? Anyone's business? We live in a country that prides itself on freedom. Why should we submit to someone else knowing how we make our money. The only thing I care about is if the money is made legally. If it's illegally made, as with any crime, I would want the perpetrator prosecuted. But the freedom to succeed should be respected. I don't want to create a government so powerful that it intrudes on people's enterprising nature.

      3. "Fair share." Every stat out there shows that not only do the wealthy pay their fair share, they pay more, AND they contribute to charities, hospitals, universities, and other noble causes of the like. Why do people claim they don't pay a fair share? Perhaps some data to show how much the wealthy pay in taxes is needed:

      From actual IRS data (yes, we use real, cited stats here), those making > $1 million pay 28.5% of their income in taxes. Those making < $200k pay 13.3%. So yes, the rich are not only paying their fair share... they're paying more than twice the RATE as almost everyone else.

  4. Love your post! Obviously you've got the Libtards' panties all in a bunch, as three of them commented. Or at least two of them and a Ron Paul idiot.

    Seriously: Vote for Ron Paul 2012 = Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    1. Your position on voting is part of the problem with our political process. It is a thought process that has become pervasive in our society and, as a result, apathy has grown and the people suffer because of an unbalanced electorate.

      What is with people's negativity toward Ron Paul? The guy served his country, is a father, a husband, a doctor, a strong supporter of the constitution and its intended freedoms, rights, and liberties... In essence, he's everything the other candidates aren't... He's the solution, not the problem!

      Don't blame him if you don't have the depth to understand his policies and/or his point of view.

    2. Good Morning Slim, LME and Amonymi (is that the plural of Anonymous?). Slim - I am amazed you took the time to put this together. Though I find it interesting, comparing the entertainment industry to the business world is not apples to apples. One makes money by entertaining the masses and the other, essentially, makes money by forcing people out of jobs. That, in my opinion, is the difference of how it seems one is ok and not the other. Entertainers make the money they do because people like Mitt sit in boardrooms and figure out how to charge the most for advertising, sponsorships, etc. It is greed (and I'm not sayng that as a bad thing... As one Mr. Gordon Gekko put it - "Greed is good" - which I believe to a degree). The entertainers themselves didn't always make much money but over time, just as in professional sports, agents have figured out the books and the entertainers themselves got what they desreved as a percentage of the overall industry (they are basically paid by the sponsors, etc.) Also, it's alot easier to look at a $200M musician than a guy worth $200 million who did it by firing hundreds or thousands of people likely putting some of those in financial ruin. Now, I get your point that money is money but people will look at how that money was made and will form an opinion of the person based on that. People see Mitt firing people and realizing those cost savings for himself which, right or wrong, gives the perception that it is ok (morally, ethically, and otherwise) to take someone's $40k/yr salary and wrap that into a bonus or salary for himself. I'm not saying this is how I feel but rather what I feel is the overall public perception.

    3. Good morning whatsamattausa - I love the use of the word Anonymi!

      To me, this is one of those "I couldn't disagree with you more" (respectfully) cases. :-)

      To me, money is money, and I do agree that calling out one rich person's wealth while being wealthy yourself is incredibly hypocritical. I most definitely disagree with this statement:

      "One makes money by entertaining the masses and the other, essentially, makes money by forcing people out of jobs."

      Businesses exist for one reason: to make money for its owners. That is the incentive that drives all things. Because of that incentive, the need to produce exists, and that breeds the need to hire. If something can be done for cheaper, so be it. If it is worth it to keep an employee who is "expensive" but does great work, so be it. But no, I cannot agree that business people make money by forcing people out of jobs. I also can't agree that people like Mitt "sit in boardrooms and figure out..." Executives do figure out how to run the company wisely, and how to make sure it doesn't sink. Business conditions are short term things that have long term effects. Any executive has to be on his game not only now, but for the future. It's a balancing act, and I don't think it's fair to overgeneralize. As someone who has sat in the boardrooms (and as someone who has owned and sold a company), to me, these are gross misgeneralizations about the heart of business.

      Businesses (the vast, vast majority of them), are moral, ethical, good places to work, and they are good at utilizing and converting resources into goods and services people want.

      Celebrities, additionally, as just as "greedy," too (and no, to me, greed is not only a good thing, but it's a necessary thing that drives our very inhibitions.) When a celebrity demands $18 million for one film instead of $17 mil, if they are worth it to whomever is making the film, so be it. The amount of money someone makes is only the business of the person who makes it and the person who pays it. If the filmmaker doesn't think that person is worth it, they are free to go with someone else at whatever price they ask.

      As someone who absolutely and wholeheartedly believes in free market economics, price (whether it is wage/salary, or the price of a good or service) should only be determined by 2 entities: the buyer of the good/service (or labor... in this case, and employer), and the seller of the good/service (for labor, the employee). Any other interjection of an outside force distorts the market. And yes, greed is good. We are ALL greedy. We all want the best house, food, educations, cars, etc. To say we aren't, in my opinion, is cutting everyone short. Greed is what drives us, but yet, it is treated like a 4-letter word. You're greedy, I'm greedy, 32slim32 is greedy... that's why we work, earn money, and spend it on our stuff. To claim someone like Mitt Romney or another wealthy Wall Street type is greedy because his "greed" involves more 000s than ours is, in my opinion, way off base. We all play the a game; degree is irrelevant :-)

    4. WHAT - Is wealth a zero-sum game? Or is it not? I'm a Paul, OWS loving, anti corporate fan as you are, but I'm willing to admit that your assertions that wealthy people get rich by taking it from poor people and "forcing people out of jobs" is way out of whack. So what if a CEO makes $50 million. He did it because that was his strive, and yes, he had to take something from someone else. But you do it to. If you make $50 thousand, you had to take that money from someone else. Same thing, man. Get it straight.

    5. My only contribution to this topic would be this part, not to pick on you LME. :)

      Just so happens this is the statement that peaked my interest!

      "We are ALL greedy. We all want the best house, food, educations, cars, etc. To say we aren't, in my opinion, is cutting everyone short. Greed is what drives us, but yet, it is treated like a 4-letter word. You're greedy, I'm greedy, 32slim32 is greedy... that's why we work, earn money, and spend it on our stuff. To claim someone like Mitt Romney or another wealthy Wall Street type is greedy because his "greed" involves more 000s than ours is, in my opinion, way off base. We all play the a game; degree is irrelevant :-)"

      I agree with you in that everyone is greedy to an extent; and that we all even have to be to get by. And also agree that it isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and actually results in a lot of good in our world (drive/motivation to succeed, innovate, and raise the bar… free market and all that).

      But, I don’t quite agree that the degree of greed is irrelevant or the same regardless of the amount of money involved.

      I think that it’s a completely different situation for someone who is near the poverty line to spend 90% of their money on themselves (which, in your average case will be the bare minimums/essentials of food/cloths/shelter and a varying small amount of luxuries), and someone who is a billionaire to spend 90% of their money on themselves. One can certainly argue that both involve the same percentages, yes, but the same amounts of greed? I couldn’t agree.

      I’m not 100% sure that’s what you mean, so correct me if wrong. But in any case I definitely believe that there is a completely different level of greed/excess taking place between those two scenarios. And that seems to be part of the thoughts of many people that tend to villify the extremely wealthy (not that I agree with that).

      This isn’t to say that I believe anything should be legislated or enforced; it’s just my opinion.

    6. Definitely no picking on me, RKen. I always appreciate different perspectives.

      My major point was that many like to throw around the word "greed" like it's a bad thing. We label others as "greedy" when indeed, we are all greedy. To me, I respectfully disagree that degree of "greediness" matters. A poorer person wants what is best for him, just as a rich person does. Just as a thief who steals a pack of gum, to me, is the same as a thief who steals a car, the underlying notion is the intent... in this case, to steal... and in greed's case, to want and obtain the best things for yourself.

      If a level of "greed" was determined, and below that level was okay, and above it was not, how is that determined? How who regulates that, and at what level is it set at? I think that's the point 32slim32 was making that I do pretty much agree with: we shouldn't complain about other people's earning habits nor their spending habits. We should only worry about our own. To call someone greedy when we are all greedy is like attacking someone for eating. We all eat, some eat more than others. But we all do it... and like eating, greed is a necessary part of life :)

    7. I’m actually not referencing slim’s post, nor do I disagree with your major point. I just think there’s a significant difference in someone being greedy about making sure they food to live to the next day, and someone being greedy about having a 10th car. I think that, both in practice and psychologically, there are very different emotions, factors and circumstances between one’s motivation to survive and have some of the basic needs of living, and to attain luxuries far beyond that.

      It of course is impossible to quantify and varies greatly person to person, but I believe that in general those sentiments still stays true.

      Though again, I’m not implying in this that we should attempt to quantify it, or form any legislation on those grounds.

    8. RKen - I can definitely see where you're coming from with this. My whole issue is the vilification of those are dubbed "greedy" by anyone who is inherently greedy. Taking to the point of "how much," I can see where you stand. From my point of view, the "how much" part is where I see 32slim32's view that one in the same social economic sphere shouldn't be harping on someone in the same sphere. Sure, it is somewhat different for a poorer person, though inherently greedy, to harp on a richer person's greedy life, but to have someone like Jon Stewart do it against Mitt Romney, yah... that's not right, and yes, that's hypocritical. But yah, I can definitely see it.

    9. Can't we all just focus on our own wealth, earnings, and spending habits and not those of others? :-)

      I like the expression, "keep your eyes on the finish line, not on the field around you."

    10. LME: Yeah, I definitely don't disagree with your/slim32's view on this post. Just had my two cents to add!

    11. Always a good thing. You're one of the best at it. If everyone contributed their two cents (civilly, of course), maybe the world would be a richer place :)

  5. Whatsamattausa, good morning.

    All three of the morons that I used as examples have bashed Romney for either having so much money (Cher & Letterman) while they have MORE and Stewart bashed Romney for making $57K per day while he makes $41K per day. I am merely pointing out and mocking their hypocrisy. I also wonder if they are too stupid to figure out that they are richer or if they think we are stupid.

    I just love your assertion that the only way Romney made any money was by firing people or "forcing them out of jobs".

    As far as public perception goes, I really don't put too much weight into that as the vast majority of the public is dumber than a box of rocks. Sad but true.

  6. More propaganda from the racist KKK party of America. Keep it up. You have no chance in november no matter what you say.

  7. Hi Slim, good post...

    If what Cher said or wrote or thought carried any water w/me - which it does NOT, my issue with her tweet would be more about her smear on Gov. Romney's religion than the attack on his wealth.

    I don't really get the 'greed' thing, as ya'll are applying it to private sector businesses. They're in business to make money, when they make money, they hire people and everyone wins - if they don't make money, they go out of business and everyone loses. Where does greed fit within that scenario?

    There was a time in my life when I worked 16+ hrs a day 6 or sometimes 7 days a week, during the 'season'. That was when there was money to be made and I didn't consider myself 'greedy' for wanting to be at my job and work hard to earn it.

    I've been the one who's had to figure out who to lay off when the season ended. That wasn't greed on the part of the boss upstairs, it was survival of the business during the slow times.

    I've also been on the receiving end of a layoff when the business failed. The most recent was the year AFTER the inauguration of our current Liar-in-Chief. I did NOT blame my boss... due to President Downgrade's economic follies, he was forced to close a business he'd worked at his whole life and had inherited from his father.

    Cher and others like her, exploit their God-given talents - to make a butt-load of money, and good on them... What I can't figure out is why they bash and harangue on businessmen - who do exactly the same thing - to the same end.

    Cher - in <140 characters - attacked Gov. Romney's skin color, his religion, and his wealth... and they're supposed to be the 'party of diversity'?

    I've worked in brothels (legal in NV) and personally know hookers - with a great deal more pride and integrity than Ms. Bono.

    @ Whatsamattausa - Anonymi! I love it! Thanks for the chuckle...