“Earned” or “unearned” doesn’t have jack to do with it.

Warren Buffett, who supports higher taxes on the rich but is spending God knows how much in legal fees fighting a billion-dollar tax assessment, is a hypocrite, at least on that particular issue.

I suspect a lot of millionaires making liberal noises is simple self-defense. A millionaire who is on the side of the Democrats gets a pass on his wealth and consumption, while those who oppose the Democrats are attacked for their wealth regardless of what they do with their money. Look at the last election.

“Your definition of socialist is a bit too self-serving. You seem to cavalierly apply it to anyone who doesn’t meet your expectations, or who is better at your game than you are.”

Aside from this comment, The last time I used the word “socialist” in a post or comment was last December.

“I must have struck some kind of nerve, TB, you spent practically your whole rebuttal to my post attacking two sentences, and you failed to comment on anything else.”

Really? You said Washington could “afford to be” a great man. I made a short post pointing out that FDR was a hell of a lot richer than Washington, and look where you went with it.

All I know is the former distrusted government power and turned down personal power, and the latter thought government power should be drastically increased, and health permitting, probably would have happily served seven terms.

That’s the important part, not how rich they were.

It occurs to me that if making long-winded responses to short statements is now a problem here, you might be in deep trouble.

You seem incensed that someone who is good at making money isn’t entitled to have liberal views. Making money is a skill, not a virtue, like playing the piano. Its part genetics, part personal effort and part dumb luck. And when you think about it, personal effort is at least partly genetic, and genetics is dumb luck.

What are rich liberals supposed to do? Give their cash to the poor before they’re allowed to speak up for them? Also, just because rich liberals may have liberal views, does not mean they are socialists. Your definition of socialist is a bit too self-serving. You seem to cavalierly apply it to anyone who doesn’t meet your expectations, or who is better at your game than you are.

Applying that same logic the other way, only rich people who started off piss poor should be entitled to wealth, or to hold conservative views. Everybody who had a decent upbringing or the head start of good family and connections or luck should be forced to give it all up because only those who REALLY earned it should have it.

Maybe some rich people are liberals simply because they are nicer people. Try that one on for size.

I must have struck some kind of nerve, TB, you spent practically your whole rebuttal to my post attacking two sentences, and you failed to comment on anything else.

I had to look up Priscilla. My ancestors didn’t come over on the Mayflower. They came over on the Mascotte.

I think you don’t know what you are really talking about when you talk about governmental power. I think you just mean power for your guys should not be considered as power. Like Bachmann thinks that government debt caused by cutting taxes should not be counted as government debt.

“I read you loud and clear, TB. Liberals who have money are hypocrites.
But wouldn’t that mean conservatives who don’t have any must be lazy or incompetent?”

That statement makes no sense at all. Viewpoints are not the same as circumstances.

Liberals who advocate socialism but somehow manage a showy millionaire lifestyle are, indeed, hypocrites. Kind of like a 400 pound diet instructor. Or someone with a carbon footprint the size of Godzilla who thinks we are emitting too much carbon.

A wealthy conservative who thinks he deserves his wealth and should be able to keep it may piss you off, and he may have other faults, but he isn’t a hypocrite.

Note that “old” money isn’t as vulnerable to taxes as new money is.

FDR’s ancestors were very old money. He’s one of those people who really did have a remarkable family tree.

Fun fact: One of his maternal ancestors didn’t arrive on the Mayflower, but he was on the ship following it, in pursuit of a woman named Priscilla Mullens. Yeah, that Priscilla. I hear she ended up with someone else.

I have immense respect and admiration for Washington, he not only bet his fortune, he bet his life that he would win the Revolutionary War. And he gave up power and returned to private life as soon as he could.

But he was also fighting to protect his interests and his property. I don’t blame him for that, I’m just aware of it.

As for FDR, don’t you feel that it took great courage and integrity for a man of his class to adopt views and policies that were so counter to his own class interest? Do you think he did it simply because he lusted for power? Or is it impossible for a progressive to love his country and work hard to promote what’s best for it?

Maybe its just happenstance, but Washington did retire and go back to Mt Vernon. But FDR knew he was a very sick man, he chose to die in the saddle.

And yes, I see no fundamental psychological differnce between those who seek power through commercial or political means. Indeed, the boundary line is vague and indistinct, and those inclined to pursue power cross it easily and frequently, or pay their agents to do so.

I’ve always maintained that modern libertarians and classical anarchists have much in common. The difference was that the anarchist rejected both political AND commercial masters. Every man had one vote in his government, and every worker owned one voting share in his workplace.

Some form of organization, leadership and hierarchy is essential in any civilization, and especially so in a highly complex one like ours. But the anarchist felt it had to be organized on democratic lines, by the consent of the governed, to coin a phrase.

The Communists forgot the part about the political power needing to be curtailed. The Capitalists forgot that commercial power needs to be restrained just as much.

THe anarchists felt the workers, not the stockholders, should have this power. And they had confidence that the workers would have the wisdom to vote in their own long term interest, even if it meant short term sacrifices.

Now you can argue that in a one-man, wholly-owned enterprise, or in the case of the self-employed, he who owns that business should have the freedom to conduct it any way he likes. But business today is a collective enterprise, dare I say it, a socialized one. Bosses don’t own anything, they are employees too, they are public servants just like politicians, and they should be treated the same way.

Why is it conservatives insist people are the ones best qualified to make the decisions that determine their livelihood, and then insist that employees are unqualified to do the same thing?

And this is where FDR lived when he wasn’t being President.

It’s a short distance from the Vanderbilt place. You can’t miss it. Not sure what the back looks like.

National bosses, if you will.

Are you talking about a business-type boss? What does that have to do with this?

And that’s the back of the house.