Posted on 04/30/2005 10:59:36 PM PDT by FairOpinion
I think they chose Kerry "Investor of the Year", tongue-in-cheek. Their point is that if stocks and bonds and mutual funds are good enough investments for Kerry, he should allow all Americans to invest some of their money that way -- i. e. allow personal accounts.
I think Kerry came out strongly against Bush's proposal of personal accounts -- not a big surprise.
Investing, that's not for the "little people". That's what Kerry and crew think anyway.
Gosh darn, I hate rich liberals, I just despise them!
"Advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity". If that were true then they would have the SEC do away with the pattern daytrader law established in 2001 that allows anyone with over $25,000 in hard cash to trade stocks practically an unlimited time per week, while everyone else is limited to three per week which forces you to hold on for dear life when a stock dives. Anyone with over $25,000 on the other hand can get immediately out and short instead, not to mention have more leverage for manipulating that stock. And speaking of Kerry, maybe they can also explain to me why US senators do on average 12% better on the stock market than the rest of the country? Don`t we have laws against insider info? Or that doesn`t pertain to Democrats who can turn $1000 into $100,000?
Their personal assets? I thought Teresa was the one with the money, unless gigilos charge a fortune these days.
In fairness, I don't think Kerry is opposed to that whole "social security plus" thing -- where individuals receive personal investment accounts on top of their current social security benefits; he just doesn't want current benefits to be any lower than they are right now. The main issue, which almost no one is talking about in the MSM, is that it's philosophically unjustifiable to take people's money in order to give it back to them later in life. To people like Kerry, freedom means "free from responsibility." To someone who has actually had to get by in the real world, freedom means "free to succeed and free to fail -- depending on one's own choices."
I've heard of them, AFP are definitely some of the good guys, they rock! This is great, nice job on someone's part, LOL. Thanks for posting it.
AFP ping, great jab at Kerry and the left.
One thing baffles me: why do some of the richest folks around support socialism ? Is it some sort of "Guevara syndrome" ?
[One thing baffles me: why do some of the richest folks around support socialism ?]
Notice that the laws they support only confiscate the EARNING of money through labor. They always exempt wealth that they've already accumulated, and investment income is not considered "labor" income and is taxed at a lower rate.
"...why do some of the richest folks around support socialism ?"
I really don't understand it. But I come closer to understanding it when I look at it through the lens of "elitism".
Plus, we must never forget how ignorant (in the worst sense of the word) most folks are. Even, maybe especially, the rich ones.
Interesting.. so, maybe thats why George Soros will always have Tax breaks regardless of who is in power, but he likes to fund people who tend to make aspiring rich folks folks poorer ?
So, technically Soros and Kerry will not support socialism in its entirety, for that would mean they too might've to give up their loot.. they are supporting a quasi-socialist policy to sustain their wealth and investments, while making others poorer... Thats more wicked than socialism itself !!
Thats what I call the "Guevara Syndrome".. trying to fancy themselves like the billionaire communist playboy - Che Guevara.
Thanks !
"Che Guevara.'
And did he not end up dead in the jungle? It should happen to the likes of them, wot would be our "betters".
He started out meaning well but got sucked into terrorism, communism and finally lost everything. His diagnosis was right (that the society in Latin America needed change) but his solution (communism and peasant revolution) was wrong and thankfully, he didnt live long enough to realize it.
One thing baffles me: why do some of the richest folks around support socialism ? Is it some sort of "Guevara syndrome" ?
I'll take a stab at answering your question, based on some personal experience with some 'rich folks'. (a.) Because they have succeeded financially, or been born to people who succeeded financially, they actually, truly, deeply believe that they are better than other people. (b.) Ironically, the socialism they 'believe in' is for 'other people', not them because 'they' don't 'need' it because 'they' are better, as evidenced by their success (c.) From their lofty perch of superiority, they believe they can 'construct' a world (i.e. socialism) whereby all the 'other' people will be 'taken care of', thus accomplishing two things: (i.) 'They', the privileged few, thus 'prove' that they are 'better' people because of their benevelence, and (ii.) They never have to actually associate with 'those people'
Complicated, isn't it?
Because someone has to buy all the stuff for the peasants.
Well, if the Soviet Politburo was still around you could ask them.
Benevolent dictators. They want to be seen as "great father" while enjoying the perks of being wealthy. Maybe the best way to see it is through the eyes of the animals in "Animal Farm."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.