web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "wealth"

Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral

It never stops being hilarious that the only people who really hate wealth are those that have it.

(But only in between yacht trips and Michelin-ranked dining experiences, one would imagine.)

Vox gives the story today of a young man named Adam who was unaware of his family’s early investment in the burgeoning oil industry that led to him becoming the recipient of trust funds that, according to the relatable graphic novel-esque panel format of the piece, had him receiving loads of cash from BP Oil, Exxon, and Chevron.

Adam is a community organizer and (apparently) a socialist, and he experiences an existential crisis when he finally discovers his “modest” upbringing (because he was surrounded by other wealthy families and his family only sent him to exclusive schools his grandparents paid for and he only vacationed at the local beach *eyeroll*) was actually a front for his extraordinary wealth.

Westlake Legal Group bad-wealth-620x429 Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral wealth vox Morality Front Page Stories Featured Story Capitalism

Image: Vox

Adam gets “weird” about wealth once he discovers his family’s dirty little secret. He becomes (gasp!) frugal and tries to give back to the community. And finds jokes about wealthy people uncomfortable. Poor Adam. Never having to worry about paying the rent is hard.

Which leads him to finally ask:

Westlake Legal Group immoral-wealth-620x413 Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral wealth vox Morality Front Page Stories Featured Story Capitalism

Image: Vox

He ultimately decides that working to help others less privileged is a good way to offset the guilt he feels about being part of the 1% (although he does wring his hands over what it means to him personally that AOC’s policy advisor wants to abolish billionaires, presumably because he’s a fan because she’s not a total policy failure like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates (he names them)).

I’m not sure how to help Adam deal with the crushing guilt of having money but I do know there are charitable organizations (Gates knows a few) that might help alleviate his pain. And that his position at “Resource Generation, which helps young people (ages 18-35) with wealth and class privilege to become transformative leaders working toward the equitable distribution of wealth, land, and power” is probably less useful than just contributing several thousands at a time to local homeless shelters or health care and/or educational facilities in lower income neighborhoods.

There are literally thousands of way to give.

Don’t feel bad for being rich Adam. I promise you no one who starts out poor and manages to get where you are through hard work feels bad for you. Just try to find it in your conflicted heart to be grateful you’re in a position to help others — and actually help them — and then enjoy your next vacation.

(My colleague Kira Davis wanted me to tip you off to her new podcast episode where she covers the morality of wealth. Give it a listen.)

The post Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hazardous_to_your_wealth_title-300x169 Poor Little Rich Boy: Self-Loathing Progressive Thinks His Wealth Is Immoral wealth vox Morality Front Page Stories Featured Story Capitalism   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Michael Moore Names the One Person Who Could Beat Trump in 2020. But So Far, They’re Not Running

Westlake Legal Group usd-2874026_1280-620x349 Michael Moore Names the One Person Who Could Beat Trump in 2020. But So Far, They’re Not Running wealth Uncategorized riches Politics michelle obama Michael Moore Larry King Hypocrisy Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Barack Obama Allow Media Exception 2020

 

 

Michael Moore is a guy full of opinions. For example, he thinks capitalism is bad. And, oh yeah — he thinks he should be a capitalist. ‘Cause he is.

He also thinks rich capitalist people are bad. He also thinks he should be one of ’em — he’s worth $50 million.

Michael once asserted to Larry King:

“[I]’ve covered a number of issues and different things. But it all seems to come back to this one issue of ‘follow the money.’ Who’s got the money? And whoever has the money has the power. And right now, in America, tonight, Larry, the richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined.”

To that, Larry asked, “You’re in that 1 percent, though?”

HEY, LOOK — A SQUIRREL!

He replied, “I don’t think I’m in that 1 percent, but I make documentary films.”

Uhhh…

Anyway, to whatever degree his big statements are worthy of consideration, Moore has a message for America: He knows who can take down Donald Trump.

And it’s the President’s worst nightmare: a non-white woman.

Yet, unfortunately for those sick of the Trumpster, she isn’t running.

In an interview with MSNBC, the multi-millionaire who makes multi-millions by raging against multi-millionaires who make multi-millions delivered his antidote for America’s Trumpitis. He served up the one person who can unpresident the President:

“In fact, it is Obama — Michelle Obama. Everybody watching this right now knows she is a beloved American, and she would go in there and she would beat him.”

Well, she’s indeed beloved among Democratic voters. Swing voters? Not as certainly.

Ever notice that some people get their party’s favoritism mixed up with the whole of the nation’s?

To many, Michelle’s a member of the ultra-Left — not necessarily a moderate’s dream, much less palatable to the rest.

Nevertheless, Michael says Mrs. Obama would dominate:

“She would beat him in the debates. He wouldn’t be able to bully her, he wouldn’t be able to nickname her. … She takes the stage, and she’s so powerful and so good, you just look at that and think, ‘Of course she could win.’”

Who’s “you”?

We’re back to that “assuming everyone sees it the way you do” thing.

But I don’t mean to suggest Michelle couldn’t win. Perhaps she could.

According to a July YouGov poll, she is — after all — the “most admired woman in the world.”

Melania placed third.

But — the poll was conducted in 41 countries. That means a lot of the voters are likely only familiar with the former First Lady via the American press. And if 2016 taught us anything, it’s that American voters don’t give a hoot about what the left-wing media has to say.

Still, the lady’s got charisma. And a following.

Maybe Michael should pick up his phone. He told MSNBC he believes Michelle would take one for the team if the request was made:

“[H]as anyone asked her? If asked to serve, I believe she would serve.”

I doubt he’s correct. Speaking to CBS This Morning’s Gayle King in July, she referred to Barack’s presidency as eight years of “watching [her] husband get raked over the coals” (here).

Maybe Michael should run. He’s a rich capitalist white male one-percenter. Perfecto!

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Michael Moore Names the One Person Who Could Beat Trump in 2020. But So Far, They’re Not Running appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group usd-2874026_1280-300x169 Michael Moore Names the One Person Who Could Beat Trump in 2020. But So Far, They’re Not Running wealth Uncategorized riches Politics michelle obama Michael Moore Larry King Hypocrisy Front Page Stories Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Barack Obama Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Walking Paradox Michael Moore Has a Message for Democrats in Light of Mueller: ‘Shut the ?#@! Up’

Westlake Legal Group AP_18138011489767-620x412 Walking Paradox Michael Moore Has a Message for Democrats in Light of Mueller: ‘Shut the ?#@! Up’ white house wealth washington D.C. Uncategorized Politics obstruction Mueller Investigation Mueller Hearings Michael Moore Hypocrisy House Judiciary Committee Hollywood Front Page Stories donald trump democrats collusion Capitalism Allow Media Exception

Michael Moore attends the Turner Networks 2018 Upfront at One Penn Plaza on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, in New York. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)

 

 

Here’s a story about every conservative American’s favorite guy, Michael Moore.

The documentary filmmaker’s an interesting character, to be sure — the vocal radical doesn’t seem to understand the definition of the words coming out of his mouth. And yet he says them with such conviction.

He’s a devoted capitalist who charges people to listen to him protest capitalism. That endeavor has made him a guy worth $50 million who charges people to listen to him rage against the wealthy (please see here).

In other words, the things to which he appears to dedicate his life are in complete contradiction to the way he lives his life. What’s that called? Whatever it is, he’s about to burst from it.

He’s a walking mathematical equation, wherein values on opposing sides of the equal sign cancel one another out.

What’s left?

Well, for one, it’s his message to a whole bunch of Democrats in light of Wednesday’s Mueller hearings — “Shut the !#@? up.”

And away he goes:

“A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions. I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today — All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller — just STFU from now on.”

Did you watch the hearings? Here’s how Fox’s Chris Wallace described them:

“He has been attacked a number of times, and you would think that almost anybody else would have defended his own integrity and the integrity of the investigation. And over and over, Mueller just sits silent and allows the attacks from the Republicans to sweep over him and says nothing. I think it does raise questions about the degree to which he actually was in charge and in control of this report because he doesn’t seem very much in control or in charge of what the final report was.”

And from The Daily Wire:

Mueller’s performance before the House Judiciary Committee sucked all the life right out of the Democrats’ ongoing push to impeach President Trump prior to the 2020 election, a testimony in which Mueller often looked confused and ignorant of the situation.

Michael saw it as a definite Trump victory:

Interesting prediction, but I don’t know if I’d trust Michael Moore’s futuristic insight. Lest we forget, here’s a sampling of his eagle eyes:

Michael Moore: Donald Trump May Be The Last President Of The United States

There’s a word for that, too; but it escapes me.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Incredible: Man Saves His Children From A Carjacker, But The Shocking Ending Is Harrowing

Light In A Dark Place: Chick-Fil-A Manager Delivers Kindness To A 96-Year-Old Man In A Story That’ll Brighten Your Day

The American Psychological Association Creates A Task Force To Promote Polyamorous Relationships

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Walking Paradox Michael Moore Has a Message for Democrats in Light of Mueller: ‘Shut the ?#@! Up’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18138011489767-300x200 Walking Paradox Michael Moore Has a Message for Democrats in Light of Mueller: ‘Shut the ?#@! Up’ white house wealth washington D.C. Uncategorized Politics obstruction Mueller Investigation Mueller Hearings Michael Moore Hypocrisy House Judiciary Committee Hollywood Front Page Stories donald trump democrats collusion Capitalism Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Biden fondly recalls “civility” of segregationist senators, vows that he won’t demonize the rich

Westlake Legal Group jb Biden fondly recalls “civility” of segregationist senators, vows that he won’t demonize the rich wealth The Blog Tax segregationist rich liberal left fundraiser eastland donors biden

Remember when he got slammed by centrists for abandoning the Hyde Amendment, signaling that he might be turning towards the left?

He’s really overcorrected!

I don’t know what to make of this, candidly. Was he trolling liberals by saying it? Or is he really so oblivious as to how this plays in 2019, particularly among progressives?

At the event, Mr. Biden noted that he served with the late Senators James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia, both Democrats who were staunch opponents of desegregation. Mr. Eastland was the powerful chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Mr. Biden entered the chamber in 1973.

“I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland,” Mr. Biden said, slipping briefly into a Southern accent, according to a pool report from the fund-raiser. “He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son.’”…

“Well guess what?” Mr. Biden continued. “At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.”

I have a theory as to why Eastland called him “son” rather than “boy.”

The defense from Bidenland will be that he’s always talked this way about segregationist former colleagues (true), no one had much of a problem with it until now (true), and loyally serving the first black president for two terms as VP should be proof enough of his personal belief in racial equality. With the great mass of Democratic voters, his Obama association will provide him immunity from charges of racial insensitivity. But his competition will use this to try to pierce that immunity, especially in states like South Carolina where the primary electorate is majority black. They’re already teeing up attacks on his role in drafting the Clinton-era crime bill and his early opposition to busing as a means of ending segregation. Now they’ll throw this at him. Probably it won’t hurt him. But why would he take the risk? If he wanted to make a banal point about bipartisanship and comity, he could have just cited his close friendship with McCain.

Even if only the left-most five percent of the electorate holds this against him, that’s five percent that he needs in the general election. Progressives are *looking* for reasons to turn him into a hate object, knowing that he’s momentarily the chief impediment to a socialist takeover of the party. He should want to remain sufficiently tolerable to them that they’ll turn out for him, grudgingly, against Trump; that was the point of the Hyde Amendment flip-flop, after all. So what’s he doing highlighting his lack of any personal animus towards two segregationists?

Don’t ask me what he was doing with these comments either:

“Remember, I got in trouble with some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side, because I said, you know, what I’ve found is rich people are just as patriotic as poor people. Not a joke. I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who’s made money,” Biden told about 100 well-dressed donors at the Carlyle Hotel on New York’s Upper East Side, where the hors d’oeuvres included lobster, chicken satay and crudites.

“Truth of the matter is, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done,” Biden said. “We can disagree in the margins. But the truth of the matter is, it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change,” he said…

“You’re not the other,” Biden told the assembled group, most of whom were wearing suits. “I need you very badly.”

Bidenland will claim that that’s perfectly in keeping with his centrist, bipartisan message. He’s not saying that taxes on the rich can’t go up, they’ll point out, he’s only saying that the rich shouldn’t be regarded as enemies. Well .. no, he’s saying a little more than that. The bit about how “no one’s standard of living would change” reads like a promise, right up front at the start of the campaign, to a crowd of fabulously rich people that he’ll protect them — and their money — from the populist working class. Biden may reject the idea that there’s an “us” and “them” in American life (which is ironic given his patience for segregationists) but that idea has many adherents now on both sides. At a minimum, you would think, he might acknowledge that populists have legitimate grievances by not publicly pledging to elite donors that “nothing would fundamentally change” under his presidency. You can imagine what Bernie, and Warren, and maybe even some of the less wingnutty candidates like Beto and Klobuchar, will do with this soundbite at the debate next week. If you had to summarize the beliefs of the Democratic base in one line, you could do worse than “America’s distribution of wealth needs to fundamentally change.” Now here’s Biden aiming a dagger right at their hearts.

Again, why? It’s not like the crowd at the fundraiser would have closed their wallets if he had omitted this. They’re backing him in the first place because they already know he believes it: He’s the moderate business-friendly knight who’ll keep the howling Bernie barbarians away from their money. Biden didn’t need to confirm that out loud and hand a ripe line of attack to his opponents. What is he thinking?

The post Biden fondly recalls “civility” of segregationist senators, vows that he won’t demonize the rich appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group jb-300x153 Biden fondly recalls “civility” of segregationist senators, vows that he won’t demonize the rich wealth The Blog Tax segregationist rich liberal left fundraiser eastland donors biden   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Economic inequality and the coming “wealth tax”

Westlake Legal Group economic-inequality-and-the-coming-wealth-tax Economic inequality and the coming “wealth tax” wealth tax wealth The Blog Taxes socialism

Westlake Legal Group iphone-cash Economic inequality and the coming “wealth tax” wealth tax wealth The Blog Taxes socialism

Not all thought experiments are fun and this one will probably strike an unpleasant chord with many of you. The subject is, once again, the wealth tax, as has been proposed by Elizabeth Warren and others as a way to address what they view as economic inequality and a lack of “social justice.” It may not be coming any time soon, but history tells us that the Democrats will eventually regain control of the White House and both chambers of Congress sooner or later and they’ll probably want to attempt it. Robert J. Samuelson takes a crack at the issue in the Washington Post this week and concludes that even if there isn’t a specific wealth tax, some method of mass redistribution will have to be arranged. He poses the question as, “What to do about wealth?”

The truth is that we still don’t fully understand the surge in economic inequality of the past three decades. The populist temptation is to blame greed, but this is not a satisfactory explanation because greed is hardly new. It seems virtually certain that, sooner or later, taxes on the well-to-do and wealthy will go up. That’s where the money is, and that’s where the biggest private gains have been.

But can we do this in a way that doesn’t weaken incentives for risk-taking and investment? Can we do it in a way that strikes most people as reasonable and not simply an exercise in political and economic revenge? Good questions, all.

Samuelson is referring to recent economic data showing that the top ten percent of Americans (in economic terms) control 70% of all household wealth and the top one percent have more than thirty percent. His conclusion, at least in terms of what he feels “most people agree on,” is that something needs to be done about it. The author offers up the view that the current disparity between the wealthy and the middle class has grown so vast that it “must make all but the most avid enthusiasts of laissez-faire (“let it be”) squirm.”

Oddly enough, though, Samuelson readily admits some of the flaws in this theory. One of the greatest dangers of draining the successful of their wealth too rapidly is that you remove the incentive for others who hope to join the ranks of the well off some day. This is one of the fundamental tenets of capitalism as we’ve discussed here before. If you offer equality of opportunity and a level playing field for everyone to compete on, some will do better than others. If you mandate equality of outcome where everyone winds up with the same amount no matter how hard they work or how talented they may be, the incentive for achievement is removed.

Another point that’s frequently overlooked is that we already do a massive amount of wealth distribution as it is. When talking about how the top one percent control 31% of the wealth, redistributionists rarely mention that the top one percent also pay 37% of the taxes in this country. In fact, 1,409 households in America in 2018 paid more taxes than half of the rest of the country, equal to what the 70 million of the least wealthy citizens paid.

So that leaves us with the question of precisely how much more wealth redistribution the system needs and how much it could support. That puts us back on the Laffer curve, an inexact tool in economics (to put it kindly) but one that still offers a valuable guideline. At some point on the taxation bell curve, you reach a stage where people will simply stop doing anything to generate further income because of the diminishing returns involved. Are we already on the downward side of that curve? Possibly not, but we’ll know when we reach it.

The post Economic inequality and the coming “wealth tax” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group iphone-cash-300x173 Economic inequality and the coming “wealth tax” wealth tax wealth The Blog Taxes socialism   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Richard Ritchie: Christianity and politics at Easter. Do the Gospels present a manifesto?

Richard Ritchie is the author of The Progress Trust (Without Hindsight: A History of the Progress Trust 1943-2005). He is Enoch Powell’s archivist and is a former Conservative Parliamentary Candidate.

Eastertide presents Christians with an obligation, as well as an excuse, to think about something other than Brexit. But it is probably no exaggeration to say that anyone interested in politics who professes also to be a Christian is bound to wonder whether the political beliefs he or she advocates meet with the approval of Jesus Christ.

This presents a problem – because while Christ has a great deal to say about morals and motivation, his words are not so easily transcribed into political practice. An obligation to feed the hungry and protect the poor, for example, is not necessarily achieved by the introduction of a wealth tax. But if a Conservative’s sole reason for opposing such a tax were the dislike of having to pay it oneself, he would be on shaky ground. And even then, it’s not simple. Can anyone be confident of the purity of one’s motives? And yet, if pressed too far, scrupulosity might easily lead towards political paralysis.

For socialists, it’s easier. Christians with left-wing views almost always tend to think that their politics are consistent with their faith, and one can see why. Literal readings of the parables all lean towards condemning the rich for having too much and for lacking compassion. Hence, the need, in the eyes of many on the Left, for redistribution – although a redistribution dictated by the state rather than freely offered by individuals which, it could be argued, is not at all what Christianity is about. It’s hard to see why simply paying taxes should help to get one into heaven. But it is not just politicians of the Left who make this mistake, and who seek to mould Christ’s teaching into a political philosophy. Margaret Thatcher, for example, used the parable of the talents to justify capitalism. But Doctors of the Church remind us that these talents represent God’s grace – not money in the bank.

This is why for a ‘literal’ reading of the parables, one might more accurately substitute ‘superficial’, because it is clear that they were never intended be interpreted from a single standpoint. Almost every parable has a deeper theological meaning, which is peculiar not only to Christian morality but also to the very nature of Christ’s Church. If anyone doubts that, they only have to read Harold Macmillan’s great friend, Monsignor Ronald Knox. His Mystery of the Kingdom interprets the parables as being primarily about Christ’s purpose in creating his Church and the characteristics which it will hold – including the presence of good and evil within it.

But this doesn’t mean that an avowedly Christian politician should expect to end up politically in the same place as, say, a Muslim or an atheist. One’s religion should make a difference – and then the question is whether a religious person has a duty to ensure that the law of the land reflects his religious values.

Most today would say not, but again it is not that simple. A recent essay by the Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, has recently been published, in which he returns to his favourite theme of ‘absolute’ rather than ‘relative’ moral values. He challenges today’s central assumption that morality should be determined exclusively “by the purposes of human action that prevailed.” He concludes that the current approach to morality means there can “no longer be anything that constitutes an absolute good, any more than anything fundamentally evil.”

Any Christian whose conscience is in the same place as Pope Benedict would have found it necessary to oppose, in his words, “the unprecedented radicalism” of the 1960s. In particular, he singles out the proliferation of pornography as a serious source of evil which no Christian politician should have countenanced, however ‘libertarian’ his or her outlook. But he goes further in the following passage, which goes to the heart of the dilemma facing any Christian politician:

“After the upheaval of the Second World War, we in Germany had still expressly placed our Constitution under the responsibility to God as a guiding principle. Half a century later, it was no longer possible to include responsibility to God as a guiding principle in the European constitution. God is regarded as the party concern of a small group and can no longer stand as the guiding principle for the community as a whole. This decision reflects the situation in the West, where God has become the private affair of a minority.”

Most people today would say :“and a good thing too.” Religion should only be “the private affair of a minority.” But that is not what a Christian politician should think, whether of the ‘right’ or of the ‘left’. One doesn’t have to be a Roger Scruton to note, in Pope Benedict’s words, that “in the twenty years from 1960 to 1980, the previously normative standards regarding sexuality collapsed entirely.” Christian politicians are under an obligation to challenge a morality based entirely on private judgment and relativity, especially if they conclude that these normative standards are endangering the spiritual welfare of children.

It is because socialists in particular have liked to claim for themselves a monopoly of Christian morality – except, of course, when it comes to sexual morality – that the politics of this country has drifted into a religious ‘no man’s land’, where everyone is judged by the standards of the BBC and nobody asks difficult questions. But however important issues such as the distribution of wealth or child poverty should be to a Christian, it does not follow that the Gospels contain a political message or solution.

All we know is that ambition and material sufficiency can be barriers to holiness – and the more comfortable we are, the greater this danger. Such thoughts don’t write a manifesto: at best they only provide the moral foundations on which a manifesto is based. And Christ’s resurrection certainly doesn’t help us out on Brexit – unless it be to remind us of the Christian virtues of temperance and respect. Perhaps that should be the focus of our Easter meditation before political hostilities recommence.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Have you noticed how millionaire Bernie Sanders complains less about millionaires now, asks … Think Progress?

Westlake Legal Group have-you-noticed-how-millionaire-bernie-sanders-complains-less-about-millionaires-now-asks-think-progress Have you noticed how millionaire Bernie Sanders complains less about millionaires now, asks … Think Progress? wealth Think Progress The Blog multi-millionaires millionaires billionaires Bernie Sanders

Westlake Legal Group bs-2 Have you noticed how millionaire Bernie Sanders complains less about millionaires now, asks … Think Progress? wealth Think Progress The Blog multi-millionaires millionaires billionaires Bernie Sanders

Via the Free Beacon, the spectacle of one of the most prominent liberal sites on the ‘net targeting the most progressive Democrat in the race — for being a phony class warrior, of all things — has left me momentarily trapped inside a Clickhole headline.

The whole thing is a joy, starting with Jessica Goldstein’s post at Think Progress that accompanies the video below. “Turns out railing against ‘millionaires and billionaires’ can be quite the lucrative enterprise,” she sniffs about Sanders’s wealth, going on to note that the left’s favorite millionaire has “spent the better part of his career saying ‘millionaires’ like it’s a slur.” True! But then, realizing she’s gone too far for a readership that’s overwhelmingly favorable to Sanders, she downshifts into grousing that it’s pointless for him to release his tax returns in hopes of pressuring an unethical slug like Trump to do the same. Would a little Trump-bashing tacked on to the end be enough to redeem her wrongthink to TP’s progressive audience?

Judging by the comments on the video’s YouTube page, where it currently has 80 thumbs up and 1,200 thumbs down, it would not be.

Westlake Legal Group tt Have you noticed how millionaire Bernie Sanders complains less about millionaires now, asks … Think Progress? wealth Think Progress The Blog multi-millionaires millionaires billionaires Bernie Sanders

“It did not go unnoticed [on the left] that the video was being gleefully passed around by GOP operatives on Twitter,” the Daily Beast observes. To make this even weirder, the former editor-in-chief of Think Progress, Faiz Shakir, is now … Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager. Why would TP burn some of its ideological cred for a Republican-friendly hit on progressive America’s favorite politician?

Possible answer: Think Progress is an arm of the Center for American Progress and CAP is led by Neera Tanden, a former advisor to — ta da — Sanders nemesis Hillary Clinton. Tanden has insisted in the past that she likes Sanders and has no candidate in 2020, but lefties are suspicious of her given the bad blood between Bernie and Hillary. Some have accused her of supporting Beto O’Rourke, a potential threat to Bernie 2020 who was targeted early by Sanders supporters. Tanden has also complained (not unfairly) about Bernie cultists’ habit of attacking more centrist candidates, something with which she’s familiar from 2016. Maybe Tanden nudged Goldstein and/or the rest of the staff not to decline easy lay-ups on Sanders when they’re available. And this one was an easy one.

Anyway, the clip is fun. To think, all it would have taken to derail Bernie’s glorious socialist movement was for some fatcats to hand him a billion dollars, leaving him with no one in society to scapegoat. Maybe the Kochs can take up a collection now among the billionaire class, have everyone chip in a few mil and cut him a check. Although if I were Sanders, I’d turn them down: Any commissar with the barest grasp of history knows that the real money comes after the revolution happens.

The post Have you noticed how millionaire Bernie Sanders complains less about millionaires now, asks … Think Progress? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group bs-2-300x159 Have you noticed how millionaire Bernie Sanders complains less about millionaires now, asks … Think Progress? wealth Think Progress The Blog multi-millionaires millionaires billionaires Bernie Sanders   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com