Wonder how many of these folks Obama considers the “evil rich” (since most support him)?
In light of this Forbes listing, I thought it was time to recycle this post from May of 2012:
Because at the intersection of those two words is “hypocrite”.
This isn’t about Obama, although USA Today speculates that he may be worth up to $10,000,000.
This is about someone who makes no bones about being a socialist. This one was just elected as the president of France and is the head of the French Socialist Party. Wonder how Francois Hollande explains this away to the proletariat struggling against the oppression of the capitalist bourgeois?
France’s new Socialist president owns three holiday homes in the glamorous Riviera resort of Cannes, it emerged today.
The 57-year-old who ‘dislikes the rich’ and wants to revolutionise his country with high taxes and an onslaught against bankers is in fact hugely wealthy himself.
His assets were published today in the Official Journal, the gazette which contains verified information about France’s government.
To the undoubted embarrassment to the most left-wing leader in Europe and a man who styles himself as ‘Mr Normal’, they are valued at almost £1million.
It will also reinforce accusations that Hollande is a ‘Gauche Caviar’, or ‘Left-Wing Caviar’ – the Gallic equivalent of a Champagne Socialist.
Among other assets are three current accounts in French banks – two with global giant Societe Generale and one with the Postal Bank – and a life insurance policy.
As well as the spacious Paris apartment he shares with his lover Valerie Trierweiler, Hollande owns a palatial villa in Mougins, the prestigious hill-top Cannes suburb where the artist Pablo Picasso used to live.
It is valued by the Official Journal at €800,000 (£642,000), and is just a short drive from Hollande’s two flats in the Cannes. They are each priced at €230,000 (£185,000) and €140,000 (£112,000.
Back last November in “The Paradox of the Wealthy Progressive“, I wrote:
If life is truly unfair, and it is truly the fault of the “rich” (which includes the “progressive” rich”), why are there still rich “progressives” walking around? If they truly believe what they are saying, would only increasing taxation on the rich be sufficient? To be true to their words, would they not have to give away everything they have until they have no more than the average #OWSer in Zuccotti Park?
There really aren’t too many options to reconcile this discontinuity. The “progressive” rich:
- They think that increased taxation can be used as a bribe to the lower class to forestall losing everything to a true communist state – they believe that the masses are stupid enough to be pacified.
- They are truly ignorant of human nature and history – or maybe just ignorant of what collectivism really means in practice.
- They rose to riches without yielding physical value – though inheritance, growing rich fast through some brilliant paradigm shifting idea (google, FaceBook) or possessing a special talent currently valued by society – such as rap music*, acting or sports. One can argue that all these have value but if we removed them from existence, would there be a lasting impact on the creation of food, clothing or shelter – no. That is my yardstick for lasting societal value.
- They believe that they will be protected in this new Utopia and will still be on top.
- Are liars and believe nothing they say and are only motivated by a sense of elitism and selfish pride – they want to be seen as our “betters” or being more “noble” than other citizens. Hypocrites.
The socialist mantra isn’t “from those according to their ability, to those according to their need” any longer – it is “more for me, less for thee”.
If you are going to vote for a socialist, maybe you should check to see if they really are one.