Michael Moore Says That The Money Of The Wealthy Is Not Theirs

It has been demonstrated time and again that Michael Moore is a hypocrite. He is a very wealthy man who likes to keep his own money. When he feels slighted with regard to his money he gets a lawyer and he sues. He pretends to be Joe six pack and just one of the average folks.

Moore told people that the money the rich people have is not theirs, it belongs to everyone else. That is right, the money that wealthy people earn does not belong to them because Moore says it is a national resource and belongs to the people.

WTF?

In America we are supposed to be able to keep what we earn and we are supposed to be able to do with it what we want. In Moore’s Socialist dream the wealth is supposed to be confiscated and given to other people.

“They’re sitting on the money, they’re using it for their own — they’re putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We’ve allowed them to take that. That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. We all have this — we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it,” Michael Moore told Laura Flanders of GRITtv.

“I think we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates. They need to — we need to see these jobs as something we some, that we collectively own as Americans and you can’t just steal our jobs and take them someplace else,” Moore concluded. Real Clear Politics

Notice that Moore does not include himself. He does not say the money does not belong to US, it is yours. No, he says their and they’re (referring to the other rich people and not himself). To Moore, he is not one of the rich people about whom he speaks. He is like everyone else.

And like most liberals he is a hypocrite who believes that he is entitled to keep what is his but the property of every other wealthy person is up for grabs.

Moore is a first class moron and it is amazing to me that there are other morons who listen to what this twit has to say.

Then again, our children are not learning because their teachers are in the streets trying to keep more of OUR money (and from what we have seen, they are not learning when the teachers are in the classroom).

The teacher’s unions are just like Moore. The money is not yours, it belongs to them…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

34 Responses to “Michael Moore Says That The Money Of The Wealthy Is Not Theirs”

  1. Adam says:

    What strikes me most about what Moore is truly saying is that you hear similar sentiment straight from the tea party movement. It’s populist through and through. Yet, because Moore is a liberal your side is twisting his message in the clip into a cry for socialism or collectivism. It’s not.

    Go back and watch the clip. What Moore is suggesting is that the wealthy in America have an obligation to invest capital and job creation back into the United States and not overseas and to not sit on that cash so it could instead go toward loans for people trying to get a home or start a business. That’s what he means by the money being a national resource.

    I understand his views differ from those on the right as far as taxes and capitalism go but this is not an instance where Moore is calling for what you are attacking and calling him a hypocrite for.

    • Philip Nolan says:

      Sorry Adam – you are way off base on this one.
      First, the rich have NO obligation to invest here or anywhere else. They invest where they can get the greatest return. They created the wealth, it is theirs to dispse of as they please. This idea that the wealth of individuals is really owned by all of society is simply undisguised communism.
      Second – no one is “sitting” on cash. No rich person (other than Scrooge McDuck) has a staash of cash. All cash is invested, even if it is put into a bank. The bank does not sit on it — they hve to invest it in order to receive interest in order to return interest to the depositor.
      Third – banks ARE holding onto a lot of cash, because new federal laws and regulations have imposed higher capital and reserve requirements.
      Fourth – one of the reasons we are in this mess is becasue we forced banks and others to make highly risky loans, so it should not be unexpected that banks will only make loans to low credit risks.

      • Adam says:

        First: You are also under no obligation to hold the door for the folks behind you at a restaurant or help an elderly person carry their groceries. You do it because it’s the right thing to do. Instead of looking for the greatest return it would be nice if more of the wealthy Americans invested in America more. Many do already of course but some could do more.

        Second: I’m not suggesting they are keeping the money under a mattress at home but we do know that last year rich Americans had millions of dollars invested into equities as opposed to stocks and other forms of investments. This is projected to be much better in 2011 but it’s still a problem and it’s slowing the recovery.

        Third: Those were two thoughts sort of merged. I was not trying to imply that the rich were at fault for banks not lending but just that in general there is a climate that is still poor for growth.

        Forth: I agree with your statement for the most part but I can add that standards for lending are easing slowly.

        • Adam says:

          Well, I said “equities as opposed to stocks and other forms of investments” but that makes no sense since stocks are equities. What I meant to say is they stayed away from equities in order to protect their principal. Money sitting in banks is not the same as investing even though I understand your point that the banks also invest the cash.

  2. Ogre says:

    He’s just saying what the liberals and Democrats honestly believe. Of course it’s hypocritical, that’s part of how liberals/Democrats/socialists function!

    I would say that anyone who thinks the tea party says they want other people’s money needs their ears checked, but read what I read here first — you see, liberals think THEY OWN all the money. Therefore, if you ask for lower taxes, in the liberal world, you ARE asking for someone else’s money!

  3. Adam says:

    I did not say the Tea Party wants other people’s money. You’re clearly having as much trouble understanding me as you are Michael Moore. Or maybe it’s just that we are both liberals so you stop thinking when you see our words and just start calling everyone freedom haters.

  4. Big Dog says:

    As far as the assertion that Moore thinks businesses have some responsibility to lend money or to keep it here then he is wrong. I would agree that the banks that were bailed out with taxpayer money have a responsibility to lend money (maybe only to taxpayers) but otherwise, businesses have no obligation to spend their money to benefit others or to keep their money here. It belongs to THEM and is not a national resource.

    The Tea Party wants government smaller with less intrusive regulation so that businesses will not be forced to move to other countries and will have incentive to spend money here.

    Moore was clear in his assertions and perhaps it is you who has trouble understanding.

    He wants to spread the wealth and he feels that the money belongs to the people.

  5. Adam says:

    It’s alright. We all know the score. Your side distorts our views on this matter to marginalize us and make us look like we don’t believe the rich should be rich or that people can have wealth.

    It’s easier to call us hypocritical socialist morons than to admit that your side cares more for tax breaks for big business and the wealthiest Americans than it does in creating American jobs and investing in the people.

    Your side slashes taxes and wastes billions on things like war and then when the debt mounts you use it as an excuse to slash social programs and bust unions. Then you have the nerve to suggest you’re doing it all in the name of freedom and smaller government.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Oh yes, telling the people that we pay with our tax dollars that they have to pay more for their benefits is union busting. Geez, federal employees can’t do all that state employees can and some states want to ratchet that back so they have to pay more and are not allowed to bargain with politicians for our tax money.

    Yes, we know you all want the rich to stay rich as when Barry said we all do better when you redistribute the wealth.

    Tax cuts were for everyone but you have a hard time understanding that you have to PAY taxes before they can be cut. You also do not understand that we redistribute wealth via our tax system. This is why people who earn 20k a year and pay in 1200 in taxes can file a return and get 5000 back which is 3800 more than they paid in. How is that right and how is it NOT redistribution of wealth?

    Why should people get money that is not theirs and that they did not pay in?

    America’s corporate rates are some of the highest in the world. If you want them to pay what you consider a fair share then start demanding that all wage earners pay their fair share though corporations pay through their noses.

  7. Adam says:

    “Oh yes, telling the people that we pay with our tax dollars that they have to pay more for their benefits is union busting.”

    You’re simply repeating the dishonesty from the GOP. The unions in Wisconsin already agreed to pay more. Walker is using that simply as an excuse to do away with collective bargaining and after that the unions themselves.

    “How is that right and how is it NOT redistribution of wealth?”

    I’m not sure I’ve said we do not redistribute wealth. Of course we do. But the question is how much. You make my side appear to want tax the rich out of existence which is completely untrue. We do want the rich to pay more though.

    “Why should people get money that is not theirs and that they did not pay in?”

    Because it’s good for the economy? News flash: How many tax dollars you pay in does not determine your level of contribution to the economy.

    “America’s corporate rates are some of the highest in the world.”

    True, but misleading. The effective corporate tax rates are some of the lowest in the world.

    • Big Dog says:

      Newsflash, how many tax dollars you pay is certainly an indicator of how much you contribute to the economy because those who pay more taxes make more money so they spend more in the economy.

      It does not help the economy to take money from one person and give it to another. That is absolutely wrong and has no basis in reality.

      Walker wants the same thing for his state employees that the federal workers have. They do not have collective bargaining either. However, getting rid of public sector employees would be fine and better for all concerned. FDR did not think public employees should be unionized and he was right (one of the rare times I agree with him).

      What is going on is not about getting rid of the union but that is the meme your side has fabricated to continue the entitlement mentality of public employees. The people who pay them and the bills have said enough. We do not want them to have the right to bargain for OUR money.

      If American corporations paid so little in taxes they might not flee to other countries. They leave because of taxes, regulations and unions that inflate their prices by costing more than they are worth.

      And who are you or anyone else to decide how much is enough for the rich to pay? I think that the 47% who pay NO federal income taxes do not pay enough. They certainly do not pay anywhere near the percentage the wealthy pay. 0% vs more than 0%.

      • Schatzee says:

        I can’t believe that nearly half of the population pays NO income tax. That is absurd. I thought we all had to have skin in the game???

  8. Adam says:

    “…because those who pay more taxes make more money so they spend more in the economy.”

    Spending is not the only factor. You constantly ignore labor. This is why in your vote scheme you’d give a factory worker less of a vote than an oil executive simply because the oil executive makes more and pays more in taxes. You also would love to see a flat tax. You still aren’t catching on to how warped your perspective is there.

    “What is going on is not about getting rid of the union…”

    Walker has a history of Union busting in the name of budget crisis and you say with a straight face that it’s not about union busting? Right.

    “And who are you or anyone else to decide how much is enough for the rich to pay?”

    I’m a citizen of the United States and a voter. As often as I can I vote for folks who want to increase taxes on the rich because I believe it’s the right thing to do. That’s who I am.

    • Ogre says:

      And sadly, there are a large number of people like Adam, who honestly believe in using force to decide what should be done with money other people earn. And they believe it is the right thing to do.

    • Big Dog says:

      OK then STFU about Walker. The citizens of his state voted for him to do what he is doing, get the budget under control. They voted for what they wanted and he is doing it.

      Under your view that is enough, they decided and you need to STFU.

      Well, you and your ilk can think you decide how much people pay but one day they will stop paying. Your attitude is why businesses leave this country. You see, you get to vote for people who do what you want and they get to vote with their feet.

      You have no concept of how things work. You think spending is a way to get out of debt. Moronic. If you want to vote you need skin in the game.

      As for labor, unless I missed something, this is not the USSA yet. People can get other jobs or get better educated. People are only limited by themselves so if they don’t like making 15k a year then they can learn to read and learn a trade and get a better paying job.

      Of course, if those union teachers were doing a good job that would not be a problem.

      And Ogre, yes they think that way but they will have little luck trying to take things from you or me.

      • Adam says:

        “Under your view that is enough, they decided and you need to STFU.”

        Look, Walker is a radical republican using a budget crisis he created in order to hamstring and then sweep away unions for good. You can swear all you want and try to deflect but it’s absolutely true.

        “Well, you and your ilk can think you decide how much people pay but one day they will stop paying.”

        Right. The rich will get sick of it and just stop making money and being rich. It’s back to the factory floors and the poverty level wages for them. They’ll show us liberals a thing or two!

        “You think spending is a way to get out of debt. Moronic.”

        It makes all the sense in the world if you’re not employing simple minded thinking as if this is a family budget and we just need to tighten our belts until we get back in the black. Your side is in power now again and it’s past time you started acting like adults and leading instead of employing such crap thinking.

        “People can get other jobs or get better educated.”

        Yes, the poor are poor and uneducated because they’re lazy, right? Personal responsibility means you can be concerned with yourself and those few others you choose to care about and if somebody thinks otherwise then they’ll just have to “STFU”…

        “And Ogre, yes they think that way but they will have little luck trying to take things from you or me.”

        Oh, we’ll get it. We always do. Haven’t you noticed that yet? If you don’t like it you can leave the country. That’s what you always tell us, isn’t it?

        If the country is as conservative as your side has deluded itself into thinking then why do we have so many pieces of progressive policy in place from social security to the national park system? You can demonize liberalism all you like. All it does is make politicians put different labels on the same progressive policies that the public knows and loves.

  9. Schatzee says:

    I think we have all these programs and entitlements because once someone with a liberal mindset gets in charge they go hog wild in implementation of their “ideal world” and once you give people FREE PIECES OF PIE, it is damn hard to get rid of these new “wonderful” programs. We have too many people who are living free off of the backs of hard-working taxpayers and they really have no skin in the game. Why should they vote someone in who is going to make the hard choices and say we just don’t have the money to support you and your family. Someone is going to have work for it…

    As for the unions, I think anyone who can look at things in Wisconsin and say that the teachers and unions are being reasonable has serious problems. First of all, they are being asked to contribute so little in comparison to what they get that this should never have gotten this far. They are not entitled to any more than anyone else and perhaps firing the whole lot of them and hiring people who would work for something more reasonable and acceptable to the State, you know, their boss, may be a good answer. I know – it will never happen. Because it’s a government job and the unions are involved. In the real world, if our contributions go up for healthcare we suck it up (or find another job). If we have to pay more into our 401(k)s because of the stock exchange going to hell, we have to suck it up (or find another job). Perhaps all these unhappy people in Wisconsin should get out of the capital building and stop being “ill” with their phony notes and go look for a job that would better meet their needs. The State should do what it needs to do and let them eat cake! IMHO of course.

  10. Adam says:

    In other news we added 222,000 private sector jobs in Feb and government jobs declined by 30,000. Ogre likes to say Obama’s goal is to get more and more people on the government payroll. I guess this is one more thing Obama’s a failure at.

    But don’t worry. You guys can start to cheer on the recovery now that you have Republicans in power to blame it on. John Boehner slashed government jobs and increased private sector numbers in February! The end of big government is on it’s way! Hail the GOP!

    • Big Dog says:

      How many federal jobs are downsized military or finally removed census workers? Or did the GOP really start to clean house?

      Wow, 222k! Perhaps we will get back to fully employed in 10 years.

      I think I will wait and see how those numbers are revised. It is not uncommon for them to show what they call great news and then revise the numbers down.

      Let us not forget, there are plenty of people who stopped working. About 18% of the working population is unemployed and that is not getting better.

      BTW, once gas and food prices are at unbelievably high levels we will need more food stamps. Yes, inflation is on the rise and the unrest in the Middle East will only add to the problem.

      • Adam says:

        “How many federal jobs are downsized military or finally removed census workers?”

        The 30,000 job losses were -12,000 for state governments and -18,000 for local government. Federal employment had a net increase of 0 (technically +0.2) because of -7,300 in postal workers and +7,500 in other federal.

        “I think I will wait and see how those numbers are revised. It is not uncommon for them to show what they call great news and then revise the numbers down.”

        You say that every month and they do sometimes revise downward. Lately they’ve revised upward. You have to go back to September 2010 to see the BLS revise August down from -54,000 to -57,000. Then they turned around in October and revised August upward from -57,000 to -1,000.

        Sep 2010 Revisions:

        * July was revised from -54,000 to -66,000
        * August was revised from -54,000 to -57,000

        Oct 2010 Revisions:

        * August was revised from -57,000 to -1,000
        * September was revised from -95,000 to -41,000

        Nov 2010 Revisions:

        * September was revised from -41,000 to -24,000
        * October was revised from +151,000 to +172,000

        Dec 2010 Revisions:

        * October was revised from +172,000 to +210,000
        * November was revised from +39,000 to +71,000

        Feb 2011 Revisions:

        * November was revised from +71,000 to +93,000
        * December was revised from +103,000 to +121,000

        March 2011 Revisions:

        * December was revised from +121,000 to +152,000
        * January was revised from +36,000 to +63,000

        “About 18% of the working population is unemployed and that is not getting better.”

        I assume you refer to U-6 which also accounts for discouraged and other workers not in the workforce along with folks who are part time for economic reasons. This number peaked at 17.4% and now sits at 15.9% which is an improvement.

      • Adam says:

        “Wow, 222k! Perhaps we will get back to fully employed in 10 years.”

        Don’t mock great numbers. If we added 200 jobs every month we’d be at about 6% unemployment by the November 2012 election. That would dash your hopes of getting rid of Obama pretty quickly. By the end of the first year of Obama’s second term we’d be at full employment.

        That type of job growth isn’t going to happen of course but your 10 years comment is a little off base.

  11. Big Dog says:

    So let us be clear in this, the 30k jobs had absolutely nothing to do with Obama or anyone in the federal government. These were cuts to government employees made at the state and local level.

    So when people are excited about how much Obama has done, he has nothing to do with this.

    As for private sector, the numbers get revised and some show improvement but is usually associated with manipulating the number of people in pools or adding some bogus data.

    None of these numbers is completely accurate and most of them are way off from what we were promised.

    The question also arises that as they add jobs, how many have been lost. Is this a net gains minus losses or do businesses that lose jobs go in one stack and businesses that gain go in another. What are the real numbers.

    The media has already told us in report after report that these numbers are good for OBAMA. They do not care about good for country just as long as they can get Obama taken care of. Sort of like your comment about his reelection.

    There will not be this kind of “growth” as you call it. We have a real rocky road ahead and it will not matter how many jobs the government claims are created if people are still getting hammered.

    • Adam says:

      “So let us be clear in this, the 30k jobs had absolutely nothing to do with Obama or anyone in the federal government.”

      For the most part, that is correct. It was sarcasm.

      “As for private sector, the numbers get revised and some show improvement but is usually associated with manipulating the number of people in pools or adding some bogus data.”

      Why do you feel the need to lie so often about these things? You have absolutely zero evidence to suggest manipulation. BLS revises all the time for various reasons and it has nothing to do with manipulating the data.

      “None of these numbers is completely accurate and most of them are way off from what we were promised.”

      The numbers are as accurate as possible and when they are found inaccurate they are adjusted. The BLS just swept back through years of data and revised it based on census data. I know in your world you like to use data revision as a talking point to suggest fraud but it’s an ignorant thing to do.

      “Is this a net gains minus losses or do businesses that lose jobs go in one stack and businesses that gain go in another. What are the real numbers.”

      I’m not sure what you’re getting at. The term net increase implies the BLS is taking into account sectors that added and shed jobs into a final tally. For instance 222,000 private sector jobs and -30,000 government jobs for a net increase of 192,000 nonfarm.

      “Sort of like your comment about his reelection.”

      I won’t apologize for wanting good economic news that will help Obama stay president and keep your side from screwing the pooch again like President Bush.

  12. Big Dog says:

    HAHAHA. It was YOUR side that screwed it all up. Republicans were in charge all was going well. Democrats took over and it went south. That is all plainly evident and seen by those who are not idiots. When Dems took Congress it went bad, period.

    When Obama took office it went real bad. And yes, they manipulate data all the time. I have spent a little time around government entities you would see how they manipulate data.

    They change what they depend on, they change who they count, they change lots of things. It is like you libs changing things to make people believe there was a budget surplus when Clinton was in office when there is no evidence to show any surplus money. Numbers added up nicely and made things look good but none of it happened and America was still in debt. But the way you present it is skewed to appear as you wish.

    Crime stats are the same way. Ask Governor O’Malley. He was great at calling murders something else. He was great at calling rapes something else. All government agencies manipulate things.

    Period.

    • Adam says:

      “When Dems took Congress it went bad, period.”

      “When Obama took office it went real bad.”

      Still loving the logical fallacies I see. That’s the one constant on this site. You can always count on one of you conservatives on here to either be lying with statistics or just outright stretching logic to the breaking point.

    • Adam says:

      “All government agencies manipulate things.”

      You can clearly see why crime stats would be manipulated to make a mayor or governor look good. You would need motive to suggest BLS statistics are manipulated. Why would they be? Who cares? What is the motive? Oh look, I still can’t find a job but BLS says unemployment is great! I better vote for Obama?

  13. Big Dog says:

    Well, all you have to do is look at when prices went up and the economy started to tank.

    You can also see that someone manipulated the economy around election time. That was to help Barry but then he was stuck with the mess.

    Logical problems? Look at you and your side during the 8 years Bush was in office.

    • Adam says:

      “You can also see that someone manipulated the economy around election time.”

      No, I can’t see. I can only wince when I see you continue to regurgitate conspiracy on this site as if it’s verifiable truth. No, Soros did not tank the economy to elect Obama. Get real.

      “Logical problems? Look at you and your side during the 8 years Bush was in office.”

      All the more reason you shouldn’t make the mistakes we did. But we already know you recycle attacks on Bush to use against Obama. There’s a massive lack of creativity on the right.

  14. Big Dog says:

    It is more like, Oh look Obama and his Democrats will give me more of someone else’s money so I better vote for him.

  15. Big Dog says:

    The evidence is there that the economy was manipulated. Someone powerful did it. It helped Obama get elected as it happened when he was tied with McCain.

    The Pentagon said the evidence is there. We only differ as to whom we think did it.

    I recycle attacks used on Bush to attack Obama and that shows lack of creativity. When you say WE already know this you mean you because it is untrue.

    However, you are defending the things Obama is doing when you criticized Bush for doing those very things.

    What was that about lack of creativity?

    • Adam says:

      “It helped Obama get elected as it happened when he was tied with McCain.”

      It’s the opinion of a man you don’t know from a report you haven’t seen, am I right?

      Obama was not tied with McCain. I showed you that the other day. There was not any tie, not even a “virtual tie” as you say.

      “However, you are defending the things Obama is doing when you criticized Bush for doing those very things.”

      Name some things I’ve defended Obama over that I attacked Bush for. I do change my opinion but I’m pretty sure the list won’t be that long.