Author Topic: The Hypocritical 1%'ers  (Read 441 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
The Hypocritical 1%'ers
« on: January 28, 2012, 07:10:26 PM »
It's bad enough how the OWS folks seem to be giving a pass to not just Hollywood millionaires, Politicial Millionaires, and Athletic millionaires.  Now you have examples of folks like Michael Moore not too long ago, and leftist politicians now, who are trying so hard as to claim how they are not part of the 1%. 

NewsFlash......when you live in a 5+million dollar home, and you're raking in a minumum of 420+K, all by yourself, minus any of your investements, you ARE a member of the wealthy 1%
--------------------------------------------------------------

What planet does Massachusetts Senate Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren live on when owning a $5 million home doesn’t constitute being wealthy?

The rhetoric of class and inequality is back in force, and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren -- the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism -- made the case to MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn't own stock.

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios" she told him.

Hard to see how Warren wouldn't be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she's worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

For some inexplicable reason, Elizabeth Warren seems to think it’s politically expedient to lie to voters on national television. Granted, in order for the former Harvard professor to oust incumbent Senator Scott Brown in November, she must craft a compelling narrative that will resonate with her constituents. Over the last several months, for example, she has positioned herself as a crusader for the middle class by castigating Wall Street bankers, financiers, and wealthy business executives. Until now, perhaps, she has garnered unprecedented support and even convinced thousands of Bay State voters to donate money to her campaign.

What’s astounding, though, is that prior to her interview with Lawrence O’Donnell, her personal finances had already been released to the American public. In other words, what could she possibly have hoped to gain by asserting she was not really a wealthy individual? Indeed, her six figure salary from Harvard University alone last year puts her in the top income bracket, and that doesn’t even include the millions of dollars she’s accumulated over the course of her career. Thus, the so-called intellectual founder of the Occupy Wall Street movement is, in fact, a one-percenter.

Nonetheless, Elizabeth Warren’s duplicitous remarks are indefensible. And, frankly, she deserves all the negative publicity coming her way.

 
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Hypocritical 1%'ers
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2012, 12:50:19 PM »
You cannot claim that someone has no validity just based on their salary. That is totally BOGUS.

Of course, you WILL say it because you lack even rudimentary skills at reasoning.

Warren would be the IDEAL presidential candidate after Obama finishes his second term!
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Hypocritical 1%'ers
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2012, 01:43:14 PM »
You cannot claim that someone has no validity just based on their salary. That is totally BOGUS.

Sure I can......based on a whole host of other things, that have been made public


Warren would be the IDEAL presidential candidate after Obama finishes his second term!

For the lunatic left perhaps.  But she sure is being dishonest in trying to claim how she's "not wealthy"
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Hypocritical 1%'ers
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2012, 06:27:54 PM »
If her house is worth $5 million it is because of inflation and appreciation that it is worth so much today. Your theory that no Democrat should have the right to run for office because he/she fits your definition of poor is absurd.

Harvard professors are not paid $420,000 per year.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Hypocritical 1%'ers
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2012, 07:55:17 PM »
If her house is worth $5 million it is because of inflation and appreciation that it is worth so much today.

Regardless of the rationalizations you're grasping at, a 5million dollar home is an ENORMOUS value for a home.  I sure as hell can't afford that.  Most of us can't....except of course those evil rich, and in this case, hypocritical 1%'ers


Your theory that no Democrat should have the right to run for office because he/she fits your definition of poor is absurd.

Bzzzz...WRONG...I have no such theory.  FACTS have been demonstrated that anyone making upwards of 350k, IS part of the 1%.  So, Dems can make as much as they want legally.  Just stop trying to be morronic in expecting to convince the electorate that you're one of their 99%, when you're NOT


Harvard professors are not paid $420,000 per year.

Don't know what her official occupation at Harvard is...only that she DOES apparently make nearly 430K
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle