Jul 27, 2014 0
From Real Science,
Jul 26, 2014 0
“Let’s face it, Bill And I are not that well-off.”
“We were dead broke when we left Washington.”
Pulling in $200,000 per speech and amassing a combined wealth of over $100 million, Hillary still tries to convince us she is one of us?
She is caught between a sense of entitlement and a sense of guilt.
Those who earn their money are not ashamed of it. Warren Buffet may attribute much of his success to luck but he doesn’t run from it and never complained of being poor, even though he lives in the same house he built in 1958, albeit with a few additions.
Other captains of capitalism from Bill Gates at Microsoft to Sergi Brin at Google are proud of their accomplishments, but never run from the fact that they are fabulously wealthy.
Part of Hillary’s embarrassment is that attacking the wealthy in her political life has to leave her with some sense of guilt. Maybe it’s the fact that she can earn such princely sums without creating a product or a service or a job, or in any way increasing the productivity in our economy. Maybe it’s the suspicion that such enormous speaking fees are just down payments for political bribery, that ends the day she formally announces her candidacy.
Perhaps she is just benefitting from her status as a political celebrity. Perhaps.
But she likely feels entitled to her fees, and is very representative of the new political class that believes wealth is created by the central government; that serving the government has taken priority over elected representatives serving the people.
Her daughter, Chelsea, also stated she isn’t motivated by money. Is boorishness hereditary?
But the real estate agent who sold her a $10 million penthouse in New York was so motivated and so were the various suppliers to her $3 million wedding. I even bet Vera Wang did not donate the $20,000 wedding gown. And the only reason Chelsea probably accepts the $600,000 from NBC for a mostly no show job is so she will have a public platform to tell everybody how she is not motivated by money.
Those who inherit big money or win the lottery may not have earned it but they usually have the civil decency to shut up about it.
Jul 25, 2014 0
20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is by John Hawkins in Townhall
- Liberalism is forcibly taking money you don’t deserve from the people who earned it and calling THEM greedy for not wanting to give you even more.
- Liberalism is bitter, race-obsessed people who see EVERYTHING in racial terms, accusing OTHER PEOPLE of being racists.
- Liberalism is considering yourself compassionate for wanting to forcibly confiscate other people’s money to give away to constituent groups you hope will vote for you in exchange for the loot.
- Liberalism is millionaires who have more money than they could spend in a lifetime railing against the horrors of “income inequality.”
- Liberalism is thinking of yourself as an independent, open-minded free thinker for mindlessly parroting whatever the Democrat Party line is on every issue.
Jul 23, 2014 0
From The New York Review of Books, Are the Authoritarians Winning? by
Are contemporary politicians, on either side of the aisle, actually taking action to make the state more just and more efficient? The editors ofThe Economist do find some democratic heroes, here and there, mostly big-city mayors trying to make government more effective, but by and large they paint a scathing picture of democratic dysfunction at the national level. When conservatives win elections, corporate interests often take control. When progressives win back power, they only succeed in making the state more domineering. When conservatives are restored to office, they cut back. And so it goes, a continuing dynamic of political alternation that leaves the state unreformed and, worst of all, ever more intrusive. Both sides of modern democratic politics say they want to protect the freedom of citizens, and both end up increasing the state’s powers of surveillance.
Battered by this ever more futile political alternation, the liberal state is ever less liberal and ever less capable of controlling the interests it is supposed to regulate. Its tax and benefit systems are so distorted by special interests that it has lost the capacity to redistribute. Far from reducing inequality, the modern state is making the problem worse. As Micklethwait and Wooldridge observe, “If you put spending and taxes together, including all the deductions, the government lavishes more dollars overall on the top fifth of the income distribution than the bottom fifth.”