By the way, here's Obama's 8,200 sf house: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/02/photos-of-the-obamas-8-point-1-million-washington-d-c-house.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36462837)

He says he's embarrassed by his wealth. He then goes on to say one person can only eat so much, travel so much. This is a valid point which suggests to me he's reading high level public policy articles because this point is a point that certain economists are making in the discussion about "what to do w billionaires".

As for his house, its absolutely gorgeous and tasteful (to the extent an 8 million dollar house CAN be tasteful), and he's staying around the DC area when he could live on a ranch or something. He's a former president of the united states--you think he should live in a hovel or something?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465329)

he's free to give away whatever he wants

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465354)

Wonder where this leads us …

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465587)

"Even billionaires only need three pairs of jeans or so"

Ive joked about this on xo before--about "why don't billionaires just wear diamond incrusted gold threaded clothing all the time" etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465412)

In other words: He's uppity

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465417)

If Trump portrayed himself as a crusader for the poor & champion against income inequality, & purchased a similar house, you telling me libs wouldn’t be in hysterics crying hypocrisy?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465963)

Tell me how you reached the "so mad" conclusion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36466325)

"let me look at that child out there who doesn’t have enough to eat or needs some school fees, let me help him out. I’ll pay a little more in taxes. It’s okay"

He automatically associates the charitable impulse (with an inference that conservatives dont feel it) with TAXATION. Paying higher taxes is probably the single worst way you can help that child you are "looking" at.

Reagan was brilliant at articulating this evidence-based point: more government is not best, among all the options, for the poor. Conservatives dont make this point well anymore.

How can we craft a society where that kid is better taken care of? Well, create a roaring economy. Set as goals to encourage marriage and two parent families. Churches and local social ties. Neighborhoods of kinship and like-minded people who take care of each other. Thats how you help that kid most rapidly and efficiently, and for life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465345)

What help do I need from DC? Don't incentivize his parents not to marry. Don't get in the way of industry that could employ his dad. Don't promote policies that make it less likely his mom can stay home and care for him. Dont socially engineer neighborhoods in ways that are not naturally conducive to neighborliness. Don't flood the public school with kids who dont speak English and whose parents are so economically challenged (like migrant farm workers) that their kids will eat up all the school's resources. As a matter of fact, dont spend a dollar on Central American kids until this American kid we are "looking" at can afford his school fees. Dont waste money on Head Start, if it doesnt work. Actually use data to drive public school policy, including IQ tracking and vocational training if the data supports it. If this poor kid would do better to learn plumbing than read Maya Angelou, get him ready for a lucrative career. Same is true of my kid, if it applies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465360)

Hmmm … Wasn't his view about taxation more along the lines of trying to wrangle greater contributions from the really really rich in spite of the really really rich basically controlling public perceptions on the subject by making regular people like you and me think he was attacking us (rather than the billionaires)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465395)

I think that is a shit assumption.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465405)

TBF, wasn't that the only thing he had some measure of tangible control over--i.e. taxation?

He could and did promote all the other ways to relieve economic distress thru his speeches and his work, but taxation was something he readily had his hand on the dial for, so to speak.

If you ask him, he'd probably agree w you that taxation is not optimal, but he'd point out that it IS optimal in the context of taxing billionaires at greater rates (but those billionaires are conducting a war for the hearts and minds of chumps like you and me) and that he believes in al the other stuff as well.

He's not a dummy. He's actually very very smart, and stays informed on ivy tower stuff too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4030649&forum_id=2#36465432)