Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

Why Are The Clinton’s So Uncomfortable with their Wealth?

“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.

Print This Post Print This Post

“Richard Nixon, eat your heart out”


from the Wall Street Journal, The ObamaCare-IRS Nexus, The supposedly independent agency harassed the administration’s political opponents and saved its health-care lawby Kimberly Strassel


To summarize: The IRS (famed for nitpicking and prosecuting the tax law), chose to authorize hundreds of billions of illegal subsidies without having performed a smidgen of legal due diligence, and did so at the direction of political taskmasters. The agency’s actions provided aid and comfort to elected Democrats, even as it disenfranchised millions of Americans who voted in their states to reject state-run exchanges. And Treasury knows how ugly this looks, which is why it initially stonewalled Congress in its investigation—at first refusing to give documents to investigators, and redacting large portions of the information.

Administration officials will continue to use the IRS to try to improve its political fortunes. The subsidy shenanigans are merely one example. Add Democrats’ hijacking of the agency to target and silence political opponents. What you begin to see are the makings of a Washington agency—a body with the power to harass, to collect, to fine, to imprison—working on behalf of one political party. Richard Nixon, eat your heart out.


Of all of the incompetence, arrogance, and wrongheaded policies of this administration (and the list is absolutely breathtaking)  this pollution of the IRS has – in my opinion- the potential to wreak the greatest long term damage to our country.  Regardless of our political affiliations and preferences we have always been able to trust the basic institutions such as the IRS to be above this fray.  This administration has betrayed that trust more than any other president, including Nixon (the IRS refused to accommodate his intent).  This is the outcome of thinking that ends justify means – and that is the fundamental rule that modern progressivism practices.  A true liberal should be incredibly outraged.



Print This Post Print This Post

Bipartisan Distrust

from Politico Magazine

Blue Crush
How the left took over the Democratic Party.

But the left nonetheless faces an important existential question in the years ahead: Yes, the Republican Party’s inability to adapt to America’s cultural shifts and demographic changes is creating an enormous opportunity for Democrats. However, in an age of political alienation where the majority of Americans lack faith in their institutions in general—and their federal government in particular—Democratic activists will need to reconcile the public’s desire for smaller government with their own progressive impulses.

Read more:

Print This Post Print This Post

Parroting the Party Line

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.
Print This Post Print This Post

Exclusion of Housing from Piketty’s Wealth Data

Jonah Goldberg writes Mr. Piketty’s Big Book of Marxiness in the July issue of Commentary.


Homburg, the American Enterprise Institute’s Kevin Hassett, and a team at the Sciences Po in Paris, moreover, argue that the recent widening of the wealth-to-income gap in the United States that Piketty reports is largely a function of a housing boom in the past 30 years. This fact complicates the story. The housing boom has benefited rich people, to be sure, but it has also been fueled by a massive expansion of home ownership among not only the wealthy but also the middle and lower classes (though not in proportion to gains by the wealthy). “The largest single component of capital in the United States is owner-occupied housing,” notes the liberal economist Lawrence Summers in his review of the book for Democracy. “Its return comes in the form of the services enjoyed by the owners—what economists call ‘imputed rent’—which are all consumed rather than reinvested since they do not take a financial form.”

Also, housing booms cannot go on forever. If you exclude housing from other forms of wealth or capital (Piketty explicitly uses the terms interchangeably), these economists argue, the return on capital is less robust. “In the U.S.,” the Sciences Po economists write, “the net capital income ratio of housing capital was the same in 1770 as it was in 2010 and there is neither a long run trend nor a recent increase of this ratio.” They add: “This type of situation, where a small share of the population owns most of the housing capital, appears to be far from the current situation of developed countries, where the homeownership rate varies between 40 percent and 70 percent. The diffusion of homeownership is likely to slow or even reverse the rise of inequality regardless of trends in housing prices.”  Ultimately, the Sciences Po economists found that their conclusions about inequality in recent years “are exactly opposite to those found by Thomas Piketty.”


The exclusion of housing, a major source of wealth for middle income America distorts the data.  It is further distorted by the exclusion of tax exempt capital gains on the sale of housing.