I’ve used this term before to the sheer puzzlement of my liberal friends. What could I possibly mean? Well, a limosine liberal is one who is in favor of social programs being funded by raising taxes on the middle class because the liberal is mucho-wealthy and can afford to pay… whereas the middle class worker is punished.
Another example….. Babs Streisand is rich enough to keep the little people off of her stretch of Malibu’s beach. And, despite her support of the environment, she sued to stop an environmental group from taking aerial photos of the beach to advance their cause.
Limosine Liberals = Do As I Say, Not As I Do
Here’s a priceless example of some of the most Limosine-est of them all… (hat tip: Polipundit)
Bay lawmakers among wealthiest; Feinstein and Pelosi continue to top the list of the richest members of Congress – SF Chronicle
Members of the Bay Area’s congressional delegation, which includes some of the wealthiest lawmakers in Congress, have built significant personal fortunes by capitalizing on the region’s pricey real estate market and investing heavily in the stock market.
Two of the Bay Area’s best-known lawmakers, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, are fixtures on the list of Congress’ richest members.
But the majority of the region’s lawmakers are millionaires or multimillionaires — including those who spent most of their careers in government rather than the more lucrative private sector, according to the latest financial disclosure forms released last week.
And true to her Limosine Credo, Pelosi has the nerve to release this statement:
Pelosi: Republican Tax Policies Favor Millionaires Over Working Families
There’s one good reason to keep the GOP in control of Congress. The working class are in charge (for now). But Speaker Pelosi will most likely let us eat cake. *shuddering to even type the words*
I’m hunting for other good reasons to vote Republican this November…. but that’s a whopper in and of itself!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I seem to remember a story about windmills being placed off the coast of MA. The energy created by these devices would power a very large portion of the state daily, absolutly clean, and practically free. However, on a (very) clear day, it might just be possible to catch a miniscule glance of these windmills from the decks of the uber-riches mansions of the likes of Ted Kennedy, and thus the project was scrapped due to protests.
Former Rep Cunningham was a great example of the “working class”. And we will be working a great deal soon, in the Prison laundry.
If Democrats criticize the rich fat cat credentials of Republicans, for example, like President Bush and the rest of the oil tycoons, they are accused of being “anti-success” or against the “American Dream”
That Bruce would stoop to use the same reasoning as the Democrats does not speak well of his objectivity on the issue. If you want to look at the case for him being a blind partisan, this is pretty good evidence.
The truth that he doesn’t want to say is that your bank balance has nothing to do with your integrity as a person, much less a lawmaker. Oddly enough, that used to be something held as a truism among those that called themselves “conservative”.
Republicans such as Cunningham, Delay, are “working class” folk. Cunningham a Viet Nam Vet. Delay a former bug exterminator. Yet they are the ones being brought up and convicted on corruption charges, not real estate millionaires such as Fienstien. Power and ego have just as much, if not a great deal more, to do with corruption in politics than money.
And I guess you don’t know this Bruce, but although Barbara Streisand’s nose probably deserves its own zip code, she is not the actual elected Congressional Representative of it or anything else. She holds no government office, except apparently in your head. So I don’t know why you are always bringing her name up. Perhaps a secret crush?
If you want to look at corruption in government Bruce, you might try looking a little closer to home.
Start with this book, written by a conservative Republican, all about “The K Street Gang”. You should bring it along on your vacation as good poolside reading.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038551672X/sr=1-1/qid=1145457094/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-1925376-1532631?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books
Um….”always bringing up her name?” I can’t even remember the last time I typed her name, much less listened to a song. But you can invent anything you want, Gryph.
There goes Gryph again, with the Bruce-obsession. (I don’t seen any greenish tinge, do I?)
But what I came to say – I have said before but it bears repeating:
These limousine liberals are almost always people who don’t understand business, or how money is really MADE (as opposed to manipulated). They only know that they had better slow down the rate of business change, so their investments will remain valuable. Hence, they instinctively gravitate toward socialism and big government.
They are “conservative” in a perverted, wrong way: trying to literally keep things are they are; using government to keep others from “doing” things in the economy that might upset their interests.
If Democrats criticize the rich fat cat credentials of Republicans, for example, like President Bush and the rest of the oil tycoons, they are accused of being “anti-success” or against the “American Dream”
Actually, “hypocrites” will suffice, since it seems an enormous number of THEM are “rich fat cats” too.
Feinstein I can live with on several levels. But Pelosi is an excellent example of the worst of Democrats; inherited, married wealth that demands other people pay for her pet social projects.
Quite frankly, it doesn’t take much to be a millionaire in the Bay area these days when you’ve lived there most of your life and bought a house early on. It also helps if your spouse is wealthy. Feinstein is a San Francisco native married to an investment banker for over a quarter century and before that, to a neurosurgeon. So she and her hubby are worth between 25 and 50 million. Big deal. Pelosi is also wealthy through her spouse but it doesn’t hurt having lived and owned a house in the Bay area for several decades.
“The working class are in charge”
Only if you include thieves in your definition of “working class.” OK Sen Tom Coburn expects 7 of his fellow lawmakers to go to jail as a result in part of the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff scandal.
http://tinyurl.com/fqtj9
Most if not all of those are sure to be Republicans. Why so much GOP corruption? I think it’s due to conservative contempt for government to the point of actually considering it evil. From there it’s not a big step to rationalizing that cheating and stealing from something you consider evil is not morally wrong.
Ian, I don’t think that the Democrats are any better off in that regard than the Republicans so I don’t think you can connect corruption to the belief that government is evil. How about just attributing corruption to a lack of personal integrity, greed, avarice, and the darkness in men’s hearts?
I don’t know that it works to say that the “working class” are in charge, exactly. But the Republicans have never, IMO, had the sort of institutional distain for people who have money that the Democrats do. So it’s not that they aren’t every bit as wealthy but that they’ve always been pro-business and responded to “fat cat” sorts of criticism with “yeah, so?”
The Democrats, on the other hand, present themselves as being all about the little guy, all about labor rather than business, all about social justice and economic equality. They “represent” the migratory farm workers, the inner city minorities, the struggling single mothers. Yet a cursory survey of Democrat politicians reveals an amazing array of inherited (or married to it) wealth and priviledge. A person really does wonder if any of these people ever held a job where they had to show up to work, or ran a business where they had to meet payroll.
Gheez, with GrampaGryph around, we don’t even have to go to the circus to see highwire stunts.
GrampaGryph is up on the bars and operating without a safety net again when he writes “…like President Bush and the rest of the oil tycoons….” he really meant to write that Pres Bush earned his money in sports franchise and real estate, not oil. Gramps is probably sorry for having attempted again to mislead and deceive readers here.
And after missing the bar once, GrampaGryph hits the net again when he writes “That Bruce would stoop to use the same reasoning as the Democrats does not speak well of his objectivity on the issue….” and then tries to divert Bruce’s point into some sort of corruption charge. I thought Bruce was speaking about liberals with healthy bank accounts steering govt policy… which has zip, nada, zero to do with corruption. Isn’t it corrupting when discussants try to mislead, misconstrue, and deceive others?
Finally, GrampaGryph falls from the highwire, misses the net and splats into the tarmac when he writes “Barbara Streisand’s nose probably deserves its own zip code, she is not the actual elected Congressional Representative of it or anything else.” Gheez Gramps, I thought Bruce was offered a valid example of the duplicity and inconsistency of limo liberals like Babs Streisand… Show me where he even indirectly or obtusely implies in a roundabout way that she was a member of Congress or a policymaker. I’m betting not even with an adjustment in the tinfoil hat, you can pull that little spin-myster move off with credibility.
Gotta love that Gramps, no need for a circus when he comes to town.
Synova writes “A person really does wonder if any of these people ever held a job where they had to show up to work, or ran a business where they had to meet payroll”
That’s pretty much true in for the top ranking Michigan Democrats anway… Governor Good Smile has been a career politician, US Democrat Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin are both career politicians –neither have had a job for longer than 1 year outside govt… and our former Atty Gen was a career politician –as well as the last three Democrat governors have been.
In our Michigan Congressional delegation, two Democrats are dynastic career politicians, three others are just career politicians. What’s that adage about Democrats go into to politics to make money…. ummm.
#8: Synova, I will be the first to admit that there are those on the left who disdain people who have money. But I wouldn’t necessarily assume those particular lefties are all Democrats. Nor are Democrats immune to corruption – there are at least one or two under investigation. Certainly there are always a variety of factors involved in someone becoming corrupt but I don’t think you can easily dismiss as a factor the belief by many conservatives caught up in this latest corruption scandal that the federal government is “bad.” Such an idea would seem to me to make it easier to rationalize dishonesty involving cheating the government. Otherwise, it’s really hard to understand how these conservative guys – most of them very devout Christians – could get caught up in it all. Certainly, if you truly believed that government was “good”, that would presumably make it harder to rationalize stealing from it.
I also don’t think it necessarily follows that someone of inherited wealth would necessarily have to be against the “working class.” It depends a lot on the specific individual but it wouldn’t surprise me that someone who never knew poverty or working for a living might have the time to devote to “the common good” and/or “public service.” Perhaps it’s because money has less meaning for some of them and they seek other types of “rewards.”
#11 I don’t know Ian. Maybe they get caught in this stuff because they aren’t good at it. Take me for an example… way back in highschool if I ever did *anything* wrong I’d get caught. If I chewed gum I’d get caught. I just didn’t misbehave often enough to ever get good at it. 😉
More seriously, believing that government is evil is going to affect behavior but I don’t see how it would lead to taking money from the State, particularly as most of the “gov is evil” thought is that the money belongs to the people, so while *maybe* they’d disrespect the State in various ways, would they be more likely to disrespect the people? I don’t see it. Not at all.
I could argue that liberalism would actually lead to more graft and corruption because of the belief that spending government money *isn’t* taking money from individuals. I probably wouldn’t be any more correct, but I could make that argument in a logical way.
In the Philippines there was a strong culture that it wasn’t wrong to take from people that could afford it, which meant that it was fine and dandy to steal from Americans. That’s more like what I see from liberals in the US, that it’s not wrong to take money from people who have money.
Not that conservatives seem to be doing much better lately. As the libertarians would say, OPM is addictive.
“But Speaker Pelosi will most likely let us eat cake.”
Well, it’s obious she won’t eat it!
“Limousine liberals” to me is a misnomer. Given Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Boxer and her Clinton in-laws, not to mention perpetual trust fund fatso Teddy “Where’s My Pants?” Kennedy? we should call them what we call all Europeans of the same ilk:
“Champagne Socialists.”
Much more descriptive and politically accurate, I say.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
From the post
I’ve used this term (“Limousine Liberals”) before to the sheer puzzlement of my liberal friends. What could I possibly mean? Well, a limosine liberal is one who is in favor of social programs being funded by raising taxes on the middle class because the liberal is mucho-wealthy and can afford to pay… whereas the middle class worker is punished.
So, query me this. What term do you use to refer to someone who is in favor of corporate welfare funded by raising debt on the children of the middle class, regardless of whether those children might be mucho-wealthy or mucho-poor, and regardless of whether they might be able to afford to pay for your profligacy?
I frankly don’t give a tinker’s damn about this issue. We don’t have any children. As far as we’re concerned, let the children pay for your profligacy. We’re perfect conservatives.
The only thing that the Bushies have done for gay people is to push for the elimination of the death/estate tax. As far as we’re concerned, great!
raj said…
“I frankly don’t give a tinker’s damn about this issue.”
Then I have to wonder why the petulant little child felt the need to open his yap.
Must be that whole “starved for attention” issue, huh?
Eric in Hollywood
What term do you use to refer to someone who is in favor of corporate welfare funded by raising debt on the children of the middle class, regardless of whether those children might be mucho-wealthy or mucho-poor, and regardless of whether they might be able to afford to pay for your profligacy?
“Intelligent”.
The theory is the same as parents taking out a loan to pay for their child’s education; you incur debt now to increase the earnings potential and power later.
The problem here, Raj, is that you and your fellow leftists don’t like the fact that you have to WORK in order to make money; you think the government should take money away from others and give it to you.
raj writes: what do you call someone “…who is in favor of corporate welfare funded by raising debt”?
I have a different take from NDXXX –although I like his, too.
I call them industrial policy Democrats. Here in Michigan, we’ve had lots of em. The last two Democrat governors are industrial policy Democrats who think state govt can better determine how best to invest and drive market choices, who should use state taxpayer-funded monies to encourage biz enterprise, and which economic segments should benefit from preferential tax treatment… it’s called industrial policy Democrats.
I’m sure it’s a concept that even Germans have heard of by now.
I read the Blog Nice site I found and I bookmarked the site… Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.