Comments on: “Trustfund Buster”: Michael Barone on the “trustfund left”

By: Paul Kerr

Paul Kerr — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:35:40 +0000

Please. There is no data whatsoever for these claims. In order to prove his argument, Barone needs evidence that the areas he cites: A) have significant trustfunder populations, and B) those trustfunders BOTH vote for Democrats AND make up a significant portion of the electorate. His purported “argument” really boils down to a stupid ad-hom: Dems get money from undeserving traitors who hate America. But: A) it is undeniable that the GOP has a ton of wealthy donors. I bet at least some are trustfunders (see, this is why data is good) and Bush didn’t exactly work for his wealth B) Barone cites no evidence for this silliness about trustfunders hating America, etc, etc. Citing a Huntington book doesn’t cut it. C) Barone cites no evidence that Democratic trustfunders’ political preferences are motivated by guilt D) Barone cites no evidence that trustfunders are major democratic contributors Note to those who disagree: 1. citing two books is not evidence,esp. without any particulars 2. referring to Ward Chruchhill (almsot certainly the source for the Hitlerism reference) proves precisely nothing 3. your personal experiences and advice from your friends do not constitute reliable evidence that can be used to support a general proposition, such as the one Barone espouses. Barone’s article represents a frequent problem in public discourse - the lack of standards for being taken seriously…yes, we should all entertain different views, but one needs to demonstrate a certain amount of seriousness before one can be considered a player in the larger political debate. I don’t mean credentials, I mean the demonstrated ability to make intellectually honest arguments grounded in fact.

By: Davis

Davis — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:44:16 +0000

it’s cool i like it

By: Bunny Slippers

Bunny Slippers — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:21:16 +0000

Since all op-eds are just that–opinions–you’re arguing just to argue. In case you missed this fact, 56% of Colorado voted for Bush. Take out the liberal hotbeds that Barone names and that percentage goes up–the working folks (and in fact, the poorest counties out here) voted strongly for Bush. That’s generally true throughout the country. So agree or disagree about trust fund babies, polling shows that the richest and the poorest vote democrat. We know why the poor do, but why do the rich? A coworker of mine who makes nearly $1 MM year is a staunch democrat and its clearly because of the guilt he feels for being successful.

By: Losing Faith

Losing Faith — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:37:49 +0000

I’m still just trying to determine the point of the article and thread. Mostly the article seems to be wanting to associate trustfunders with the left and establish that point as bad by belittling people that inherit money. It’s all insinuation too, there’s nothing factual. It’s someone trying to create a perception with ranting opinion. I object to that method when I notice it from the left or right.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:49:30 +0000

Doesn’t anyone find it ironic that Colorado is being used as the liberal trustfund hotbed when its latest Republican Senate candidate inherited all his wealth? C’mon, everybody tell me how hard Peter works as ViceChairman of Coors. Right.

By: Bunny Slippers

Bunny Slippers — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:07:26 +0000

Losing Faith, No one has said that all trust funders are idiots or that giving to the Left is a bad decision (I might argue its not the best one…). The fact that you want to launch into hyperbole says something, though. I spoke about personal experience and no, it doesn’t prove anything. I do know trust fund babys that work their rears off. Living in Colorado though (near Boulder) and with relatives in Durango–two trust fund hot beds–my personal exerience bears out that Barone is far more on target than off. The truth is that those who work for what they have are far more in touch with its value than those who don’t and are far less likely to hand it over to the government for redistribution. If we’re wrong than tell us why. I’m tired of the fuming without substance from some on the Left. To quote Winston Churchill, “If you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you don’t have a heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re older, you don’t have a brain.”

By: Losing Faith

Losing Faith — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:38:54 +0000

So the point is that all trustfunders are idiots and therefore they make bad decisions by giving to “the Left”. Well, I guess since it’s just throwing out unfounded opinions, there’s nothing really to debate.

By: Bunny Slippers

Bunny Slippers — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:43:08 +0000

Kevin B.–well said. An attorney-friend told me trust funders are the most screwed-up clients he gets because they have little frame of reference for what they have and thus make bad decisions over and over again. He did say that if you can stand em, they make great repeat clients because they need the advice so badly. As for the estate tax, it seems to me we fought a revolution over double taxation and estate taxes are a present-day form of that. Tell me, after working and saving after tax dollars for a lifetime, why should the government receive as much as half of those savings? What did they do to earn it? I’ve never understood why estate taxes are morally acceptable, but I’d love to be enlightened (and notice that I don’t make the same distinction you do as to whether its a Democrat or Republican issue, estate taxes are just plain wrong).

By: Kevin B.

Kevin B. — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:43:42 +0000

I think a valid point that can be made from this post is a variation of the old “give a man a fish” adage: Anytime you do something for someone which they are capable of doing themselves, instead of them earning it, it hurts them. Note that the majority of large-sum lottery winners are financially ruined by their winnings in a short amount of time. The result of trustfunders and other found (i.e. not earned) wealth is that they a) attribute the accumulation of wealth to luck rather than work, since they didn’t earn it themselves; and b) feel guilty for the wealth they have and therefore c) vote for liberal politicians who seek to redistribute the wealth of the “evil”, “lucky” free-enterprisers since they don’t believe anyone actually earned their wealth, since they themselves didn’t. Incidentally, broke people often attribute wealth to luck or evil greed, but for the opposite reason: since they are working hard at their job all their lives (note- being an employee, they not personally engaged in the free-enterprise system) and somehow the union has failed to make them independently wealthy, they conclude that wealth is for the lucky or the greedy. And again, vote for liberal politicians who seek to redistribute the wealth of the “evil”, “lucky” free-enterprisers.

By: Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:07:12 +0000

So the Repubicans get votes from the Christians, and then they pass laws - repeal taxes on inherited income, divident, etc. - to benefit the Democrats? THAT’S what’s going on here? The Republican leadership is working for the DEMCRATS???