Friday, October 07, 2005

Liberals And Their Eat The Rich Mindset

I started thinking about liberals and their 'eat the rich' mindset today and decided to do some checking on one or two of them. several houses in a different area, and let others live there rent free. I mean, charity is the way of the day, right?

I find this to be a common theme among celebrities where they will complain about wealthy people not doing enough...until it comes to their OWN personal sacrifice. Suddenly when personal sacrifice becomes the word of the day, mum's the word. How is it that I have this gut feeling that every single celebrity that talks about people paying their fair share still itemizes their deductions on their taxes? How is it that I know that every one of them squeezes that lemon until they get every legal deduction they (or their tax advisors) can find?

Jello Biafra lives in a house worth 1.8 MILLION dollars (approximate - based on comparable sales). OK - no matter how you slice it, he's in a nice neighborhood and has a lot of money. This same man complains about the rich people trying to screw the poor people. He complains about financial abuses of corporations. Interestingly, his own company, Alternative Tentacles, recently lost a lawsuit over allegations of unfair dealings and doing what I consider to be...ta-daaaaa...screwing the poor people.

So - do the wealthy owe the poor anything? Are the wealthy evil? Do they prey on the needy? Do they cheat people left and right.

I guess if you look in the backyard of liberalism, yes...that is precisely what the wealthy do.

Liberals need to get a clue. I don't owe strangers anything. A fair share doesn't increase in size when you make more money. Taxes do NOT need to be increased. Spending needs to be cut. I will give to the needy when I choose.



Blogger Marie said...

I have no intention of eating the rich and I'm a liberal! YUK!

This liberal believes that we all make choices in life......but it's the choices one makes in high school that will be the most important. Some will do well, some not so well, some will go to vocational schools, some to college, some will drop out. These choices will determine the financial successes or failures for the rest of their lives. It's all about choices and taking responsibility for those choices.

As far as helping the poor. I don't mind paying my fair share so that others will have the opportunity to make CHOICES. I am an advocate for Welfare reform. After that it's up to the individual to make their own choice in life.

Do I donate time and money to those in need? Yes. I have raised my children to be understanding and giving. Do I mind paying taxes? No. Do I itemize on my taxes? Yes. Do I love my neighbor as myeself? Yes.

best wishes from a fellow Hoosier.....marie

1:55 PM  
Blogger Marie said...

Am I a poor typist? You bet. ;)

1:56 PM  
Blogger Bartleby said...

Hi Marie,

While I'm no fan of the vast majority of taxes (I prefer voluntary giving to extortion), I wouldn't call you a fiscal liberal. In fact, excepting the taxation, you and I tend to agree on things.

That said; I don't think you represent the typical vocal liberal. The ones at the protests, the ones that write letters to the editor, and the ones that are on television seem to be uniformly nigh on communists.



9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You do realize he lives in San Francisco and houses start at 1 million dollars to buy them.
He, unlike his former bandmembers saved his money and bought his home about 15 years ago when it was an abandoned property.
Lucky him the market changed and is worth more now.
And, I know for a fact that appraisal amount is an exaggeration.
Your facts are incorrect as well about the lawsuit.

10:25 PM  
Blogger Bartleby said...

Um, he paid $530,000 for it, so it doesn't sound like it was much of an 'abandoned property' when he bought it. Also - it had been sold prior to his purchase in 1990, only two years before he bought it - so how 'abandoned' could it have been?

The average sale proce of comparable homes in the area for the past twelve months is 1.728 million dollars. The high sale amount is 2.749 million dollars. Hell - the TAXABLE value of his property is 665K! For a property he's owned since 1992, that HARDLY reflects actual value given the effects of proposition 13 on California real estate taxes!

By the way, that estimate is for homes with +/- 1 bathroom, +/- 1 bedroom, with a size variance of 15 square feet that exist within one mile of his house and have sold in the last twelve don't give me that hooey. It's accurate.

I'd call that a pretty freaking accurate appraisal that is off the top of one's head.

Also - the facts about the lawsuit are fairly clear and are a matter of public record:

1. There was an agreement to pay DK more than any other band that is on that title.
2. Biafra/Boucher didn't do that.
3. He had to pay them money as a result of that.

I imagine he *DID* save his pennies. That doesn't make him any less rich or make him any less guilty of the "crime" of being so.

So don't come here and tell me you know all about it when you clearly do not.


11:08 PM  
Blogger Bartleby said...

Oh yeah - whether or not houses cost a million bucks in the area where he lives is irrelevant to his financial status of being 'rich'.

If he weren't rich, he couldn't live in San Francisco! Hell, I'd live in Bel Air if I could, and houses start pretty freakin' high there too - but I can't, because I'm not rich! The fact that he lives in a hyper-expensive neighborhood makes him better off, not worse!


11:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent, love it! The pornstar Online bill pay online Pioneer plasma tv protective screen Mortgate rates buy tramadol matchmaking sites interracial dating Mandalay bay hotel vs casino Jenna jameson brianna banks poster Bitch pissing pantie amatuer interracial discount viagra 1 Color copier fax multifunction printer refurbished scan

5:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home