There we were, Saturday night, at the movies, snuggling up in our stadium seats about to take in a preview of The Proposal. (Shut up, Ryan Reynolds got naked in it.) And there on the screen, during the previews, came a message from filmmaker Michael Moore, who told us ushers would be coming through the aisles to collect donations. “We’re all for charity,” we thought, “but I’ve got one hand on my hot dog and another on my Diet Coke, and digging around in my pocket for loose change gets annoying.” But then came the rub: Moore was collecting donations for the CEOs of banks like Citi, Bank of America, and JP Morgan. A ha! Just the latest marketing stunt from everyone’s favorite radical liberal.
in theatres
And Then Michael Moore Came for the Banking CEOs
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
John
I love this man, it’s important to call these CEO’s out on their bullshit..but it wont work, it never works. The rich rule, they make the rules and thats that. we will continue to pay for their bail-outs and they will continue to get their million dollar bonuses.
Jake the libertarian
Michael Moore is a liar and a general piece of shit. He uses people, and if you don’t think he will use you, you are a fool. That fat piece of crap has more fucking money that he can shake a stick at and still thinks my taxes ought to be raised.
He is about controlling people and increasing government power. Just because he isn’t anti-gay doesn’t mean that that left wing lunatic should be given any credibility whatsoever. SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS MEANS HIM!
Tallskin
Jake the libertarian – what is with you right wing loons who think that your liberties are decreased by having to pay taxes????
Sheeeez
Jake the libertarian
@Tallskin:
First of all, I am not a right wing loon. I am a constitutionalist and someone who believes in that the strength of our nation and our culture comes from the success of the individuals within it, not the collective. We didn’t create Microsoft… Bill Gates and his partners did… therefore they should receive the profit.
Michael Moore (and I am assuming you) believe that the collective is responsible for the success of the individual, therefore they should share in the profit. High taxes on high producers is their way making sure that the collective gets their due return. Not only is that sentiment unfair, it makes it much more difficult for high producers to continue producing.
While this is simply a philosophical difference and one which I am certain I can win on merit, Michael Moore insists on using lies and fear based propaganda to make his points. He is a fascist. If you don’t believe me… look it up. For Michael Moore, the end always justifies the means. Just because he votes democrat does not mean he is a good person, and just because he didn’t like George Bush does not mean he is good for society.
Nate_Adler
@Jake the libertarian:
I can’t stand Michael Moore, either, but lets not forget that Bill Gates did not develop the computer. The “Collective,” as you so derisively call government funded entities, did. No one else would have had the money to fund such an expensive endevour.
Bill Gates did not build the internet from which he profits so greatly, government funded research created it from dust in the early 1970’s then handed it over almost free to private enterprise.
And just to put the cherry on your paultard sundae, I pay 39% tax, Bill Gates around 20%
So let’s all just drop this collective stuff, shall we? If government had not funded that kind of research, Bill would be writing puzzle books and I’d be reading your ill-conceived notions on material made from dead trees.
Jake the libertarian
@Nate_Adler:
Well good for us for being in a high tax bracket. I think my point was that it is counterproductive for people to spend their time worrying about how much money other people make. I have no idea how many taxes Bill Gates pays… and frankly I couldn’t care less. I hope he pays as little as possible.
We have gotten into the mindset that what is mine is in fact ours… and I should be happy with whatever the likes of Michael Moore think I should be able to keep. As the government continues to grow under the likes of Bush and Obama they require more of the peoples’ money. Therefore they villanize the people who create jobs and profit in our country and try to get the uneducated idiot masses to agree to let the government rob us as if they were fucking Robin Hood.
Gay activists really should understand this tactic… NOM uses it every day. We should all stand up and say “What’s mine is mine, not ours. I own me. You have no right to take things from me or tell me how to live! And frankly, it’s not my damn responsibility to make your car payment for you.” That’s not so damn controversial is it?
Nate_Adler
@Jake the libertarian:
No, it’s not your responsibility to make my car payment. A fact I learned a little too late now that I see the repoman just took it.
But I am really sick of anti-tax zealots and that’s why I jumped in the Queerty pool party. Research in new technologies must be paid for without regard to profit or else the most expensive and difficult of it won’t get done. Roads must be safe. Streets need to be policed. The “collective” is US, after all, and there are things we must do, you know, collectively, if they are to be done at all.
And sometimes we just have to be our brothers keepers, you know?
But back to the subject at hand. Michael Moore is indeed a tool.
galefan2004
@Jake the libertarian: Considering my side already won, this is a fight that is not worth fighting. However, I will say, that when you allow people to chose between starvation and murder they will probably chose murder. That means, those rich assholes, such as yourself, should be very careful when you start to think about how to keep your money to yourself, because as 2000 years of history has taught us, when you make your money off of the backs of disenfranchised labor it is only a matter of time before that labor comes for your head. Also, that CEO is making 5 million (even though his company that he is managing is losing billions every year) a year to do considerably less for the company than that sales person, that is busting their asses to make the sales on a daily basis, who is making $5000 a year. So, learn to acknowledge what makes businesses truly great before you go the way of the dinosaurs and the new businesses that honestly do realize that replace yours.
Jake the libertarian
@galefan2004:
I would check your history brother… What 2000 years of history has shown us is that when GOVERNMENT takes the property of the INDIVIDUAL then society overthrows the GOVERNMENT. It is a bastardization of history to equate government, bedazzled with their own benevolent power and certain of their superiority and successful producers within a society. It is the people who make their own way and have it stolen from them who rise up against those who mean to take it from them.
Also, no tyrant in history, from Nero to Hitler, believed they were a tyrant. They all did what they did for their country and their belief system. The redistribution of wealth is amoral and refusing to acknowledge that simply opens the door to more unethical behavior… Such as your implication that it would be ok for a mob with torches and pitchforks to lynch successful businessmen.
Jake the libertarian
@Nate_Adler:
I am not an anarchist and I agree with most of what you said. But keep in mind it is not philanthropy to give away other people’s money… its theft. Even if its well intentioned theft, it is immoral. Taxes to police streets and keep up infrastructure are ok… money to people who didn’t earn it so that we don’t have to personally help our fellow man is wrong.
Gurlene
@Jake the libertarian: How many alligators do you have in your moat?
Jake the libertarian
@Gurlene:
Seven. I feed them poor people and babies while counting gold coins and laughing.
galefan2004
@Jake the libertarian: You are so right Jake. I mean, you buying that brand new sports car while a young child starves to death because his family can’t buy him food puts you on such a higher moral ground than me. I hope I can be just like you some day. Then again, if we were all as greedy as you, the human race wouldn’t have made it this far.
Jake the libertarian
@galefan2004:
First of all… I am not super rich. Second of all, you have no clue what I do for charities, the arts, and the mentally challenged, all of whom I have volunteered for. If I can buy a nice car for myself before all the world’s children are fed, just kill me. Hey, I am sure you spend your time giving away anything you have that falls in the “luxury” category. Maybe… the computer you are typing on? Maybe a new shirt you bought that you really didn’t need? Maybe that nice meal you treated yourself and a loved one to?
But it’s ok because you’re not rich, right? How about I just get to live my life without others telling me what is ok and what is not ok. You know what happens if you follow your logic, right? They get to tell you who to love too.
galefan2004
First of all, I’ve been disabled for the last 12 years, so I understand what it is like to live on disability. I also understand what it is like to go without. The computer I’m typing on was bought with money from my student loans and is by no means a luxury. I built this baby for $400. I haven’t ever bought myself a new piece of clothing I didn’t need. You see, when you barely get enough money to pay your bills you don’t get to buy new things like that, and even on the rare the occasion that I bought a shirt I did need, it wasn’t new, and it wasn’t worth anything. I don’t think I have ever been to a “nice meal” which would live up to your standards. I get to go to a buffet about once or twice a month. I spend the rest of the time feeding my family that can’t afford to get groceries off of what little bit of money I actually do have left when all is said and done, and there are many times I don’t get to eat for the full day because I simply can’t afford it. Now, next time you want to jump to conclusions about me please do so because after all who the hell am I to stop you. Also, I do admire you for your volunteer work and the money you have donated to causes, but that is not how you first came across. I don’t have money to donate, but I do volunteer when I can. This is the part where you slam me for being disabled and point out how I should be grateful for what I have (which believe me I am because I could be homeless so it could be worse) because the elites in society paid for it with their hard earned tax dollars.
Jake the libertarian
@galefan2004:
I am not going to slam you for being disabled or tell you how grateful you should be. You sound like a horribly miserable person. I feel very sorry for you. I do hope one day you find the wherewithal to create a happy life for yourself somehow. I know that will not be easy… much more difficult than it was for me. I will tell you one thing though, no one, not even Michael Moore, will do it for you. Good luck.
galefan2004
@Jake the libertarian: You see this is where you are incorrect. I’m not horribly miserable. I just realized how little you need materially to be truly happy. I’m a truly happy person. I don’t need you to feel sorry for me. Amazingly, its almost hilarious, but I almost feel sorry for you because you come across as needing money to be happy. I am the type of person that will never actually have money, because I am the type of person that would rather make a difference than get all those things that I want financially. I have given away my last $5 to someone that needed it. I have always gone out of my way to help others. Its helping others that truly makes me happy. The truth is, you are as much an enigma to me as I am sure I probably am to you. I do thank you for not slamming me for being disabled, because many people that sound just like you do it a very great amount of the time. I hope that you someday do realize just how close you get to your family when you truly need them to survive and just how happy you can become when your pleasure is derived from people instead of things.
Jake the libertarian
@galefan2004:
Well I apologize for feeling sorry for you when it wasn’t called for. All I ask is that people do not steal from me so that others don’t have to support themselves. I am not about to judge what sounds like and almost fundamentally Buddhist lifestyle. But just like marrying a woman and raising kids doesn’t appeal to me, neither does subsistence living. Hey, its just who I am, and I tend not to apologize for that.
On another note, if we could just get past the many many many examples of government waste (especially unnecessary entitlements) then I assure you I would be in strong support of helping those who legitimately cannot help themselves. Keep in mind though, I believe that private charities are the best avenue for this. There is far less overheard and a much larger portion of the money finds its way to those in need. Where I get upset with people like Michael Moore, who call me a greedy SOB from their Hollywood mansion, is when they want to take my money and give it to those who refuse to support themselves. I believe this is the majority of those who receive government aid.
BradK
@Jake the libertarian: Surely by now Jake you must realize that it’s harder to be a Libertarian in this country today than to be LGBT. How many times have you come out (either as a small l or big L lib.) to someone only to have them spit in your face, “freak!”, “anarchist!”. Almost an act of futility.
Little do they realize that the founding fathers (how patriarchal!) and the great blueprint for democracy they toiled and argued over that we call The Constitution were the very definition of Liberty — the root word of Libertarian.
It shows how far this nation has drifted in the intervening two and a quarter centuries since, that these ideas are considered freakish. Both the R and D are so close to one another today that it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between them, all the while stretching further and further from what our founders once fought for. I don’t consider that evolution in any sense. More like erosion. Not in the Constitution itself but in its application and interpretation.
While the notion of same-sex marriages would have no doubt been at least a little shocking back in the day, that shock would pale in comparison to the idea of the Federal government explicitly denying such a right to a minority by the congress or the executive. It’s time to start thinking of government once again in terms of Negative rights instead of Positive rights. You should never need to ask permission of the government to exercise your rights, nor should they be in a position to deny them.
Sorry, this was longer that I had anticipated. I’ll leave off with one of my favorite Libertarian 101 quotes:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” -Gerald Ford
(Oh noes! He quoted a Republican! Burn him! Burn him!)
galefan2004
@Jake the libertarian: Its cool. I misjudged you. Trust me, although I am totally happy being who I am, I don’t like living without things as much as I might make it seem. I just learned how to be happy regardless, because I don’t exactly have much of a choice. I also respect your right to not get stolen from. My brother owns his own business, and he doesn’t make a crap load of money (he has done pretty well over the years though) and he is a very generous soul. He has been stolen from a few times and that sucked because he is so generous.
I 100% agree with you on getting past government waste to support those that can not support themselves. Another thing that drives me INSANE is that people that can not control their reproductive habits in this country benefit greatly when it comes to help from the government. My brother has a shirt that says something along the lines of, “I work hard every day…millions on welfare depend one me,” which I agree with the message of. However, the irony is when it comes to my brother if that kid that was hungry came up and asked for food he would give it to him/her no questions asked. He works hard so that his girls grand kids don’t go with out as well.
I agree with private charities being a good thing. However, there is way to much stigma attached. When the money comes from the government, there is definitely stigma attached but it is not stigma of the “charity” type. We need to stop being ashamed to take help from organizations when we need it. Also, some charities are horribly morally bankrupt in how they spend their money. Certain large charities have been investigated for misappropriation of funds and have CEOs that make more money than CEOs of other large for profit corporations.
I disagree with you that the majority of people on government aid are there because they want to be. The majority are there because they have no other choice. We need to work at better rehabilitating these people to get them into employment. However, who is going to take a chance on that welfare mom who hasn’t worked for the last 4 years because she had to take care of her kid because her daycare that was paid for by the state was on the other side of town although she has no car and was understaffed and just had its 10th abuse allegation. Who is going to hire that disabled person that hasn’t been able to work for years because he couldn’t? I mean, it is easy to say that these people simply need to go get jobs, but its not that easy to just go get jobs. The majority of people on welfare are stuck there. They don’t want to be there. If you think its fun living on $700 a month or less than you are insane. There are people that abuse the system, I’m not even going to try to claim there are not, but its not the majority.
http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1302
On a side note, my mom worked every single day of my life as did my dad, and I was still raised on welfare because my mom was a dishwasher and my dad was in construction and they didn’t make the money to make the bills. Many people that are on welfare do work. My mom is disabled and still works 10-20 hours a week with a heart condition and a mental disorder. I am currently looking for work with the help of BVR and Goodwill Industries. I’m not even going to try to say that some people don’t abuse the system, but its no more than AIG abused corporate welfare. Hell, the bonuses they gave their employees that came directly from government money is more than I have seen in the last 10 years.
Jake the libertarian
@BradK:
It’s one of my favorite quotes as well! I was hoping I wasn’t the only gay Libertarian out there. Its so interesting to me that more LGBT people aren’t libertarian in their mindset. Aren’t we all a little tired of asking mother government to bless the way we live? It is also terrifying to me how many of these people don’t understand that when they persecute your enemy, surely they come for you soon.
One of my favorite 101 quotes:
Translated from German:
“And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up” –Martin Niemöller
(for anyone reading this who doesn’t know that quote, I suggest you look it up)
galefan2004
@Jake the libertarian: That is quite possibly my FAVORITE quote ever. Also, if being libertarian has anything to do with strict adherence to the constitution and the favor of a smaller federal government then I can agree with those principles. I am a HUGE supporter of states rights as championed by the constitution. However, if you champion states rights how can you consider a movement on the national level for gay marriage an acceptable cause? Also, does this mean you feel that DOMA is unconstitutional (much as I do)? Forgive my ignorance, but when it comes to the libertarian movement I’m just not so sure what they believe.
BradK
@galefan2004: “…Also, some charities are horribly morally bankrupt in how they spend their money.”
I wanted to expound on this ’cause this is exactly the point that Libertarians dwell upon. Remember Pallotta Teamworks and the AIDS Rides? Remember the scandal when it got out how much off the top they were skimming for their fat, for-profit business (while many more others volunteered and donated)? Something over 60% if memory serves.
Guess who was out of the business barely 2 years later? That my friend is free enterprise at work. Informed and empowered consumers, donors, volunteers, etc. free to not engage with such a “horribly morally bankrupt” operation.
Do you really think the Social Security Administration is any less corrupt, grossly inefficient, and soon-to-be-broke? But just try taking your business elsewhere. That is what keeps Libertarians up at night.
Jake the libertarian
@galefan2004:
Well, starting from your last paragraph… I am as against the bailout of wall st millionaires as I am against giving my money to welfare queens. They should not have been bailed out. That is not a radical position… but keep in mind that both the big D and the big R agreed to do it.
As for people wanting to be on welfare, I agree, most people don’t want to be on welfare… but they are on welfare because they can be. If the choice was work or don’t eat instead of work or get a free check… many many more would choose to work. I really don’t give a damn if its a good job or a bad one.
The stigma from government aid should be so much more. That money was illegally and immorally attained. It is no different than taking money stolen from a bank. Charity was given of free will for the benefit of those who need it.
Lastly, I think I would get along with your brother. He sounds like a good guy and I hope that he finds lots of success and happiness. I will be on the front lines making sure that the moral police don’t rob him to give the money to those who didn’t earn it.
Jake the libertarian
@galefan2004:
Actually I am for a state by state decision on gay marriage, which I obviously support in every state. DOMA is a clear violation of the 10th amendment and should be thrown out.
In my opinion there are no easy answers to this stuff. I just try to support liberty when there is legitimate debate. That usually gets me through the night.
BradK
@galefan2004: I’ll butt in for Jake here (though I’d love to hear his response as well)…
“However, if you champion states rights how can you consider a movement on the national level for gay marriage an acceptable cause?”
This is exactly what I was getting at. The founding fathers, in their wisdom, had the solution in place. We fucked it up.
First off, the concept of a government-issued marriage “license” (a Positive right if there ever was one) was unheard of in 1789. What did evolve into that was only ever relevant at the States level. The Constitution also has something called the “full faith and credit clause” which mandates that each State must honor civil contracts entered into in any other State. DOMA, so far as I know, is the first ever legislated exception to this. I’m quite sure our Constitutional Scholar/National Messiah knows this better than I.
As the size, scope, and budget of the Federal government grew (and grew, and grew…), especially since the New Deal, a Federal recognition of a marriage “license” came to be. But there never was a Federally defined marriage, it was whatever the particular State that issued the license said it was. Again, not until Clinton and DOMA did we have any Federal definition of who gets access to this “right” and who does not.
IOW, we didn’t “reinvent” marriage, the Federal Government did. And we all picked up the tab.
galefan2004
@Jake the libertarian: I hold both parties accountable, and I am very familiar with how the bail outs were handled. I also realize where some of it came from, but I do think it was a mistake.
What you fail to realize is that for many the choice isn’t between work or don’t eat. The choice is work and still don’t eat. The truth is that its next to impossible to feed a family of four (average family size) on minimum wage without the help of welfare even when you work 40 hours a week. For many the choice is, work and still don’t eat and don’t even consider decent medical coverage because the jobs you get are 35 hours a week minimum wage jobs and they are 35 hours a week just so the company can avoid paying benefits. Where you and I differ the most is that you blame the people for the situations and I blame the companies. I don’t see how its fair that a person that works 40 hours a week doing direct sales (making money for the company) makes about 15,000 a year and the CEO of that same company gets a 500,000 bonus each year while the company hemorrhages money.
I disagree that the money was illegally obtained when it is government money. Yes, you might not want to believe in tax codes funding government welfare programs, but it has ever since FDR and at the time of FDR it was established to do so because the majority of this country decided it should. Rather you like it or not, the core principle of democracy is that the majority decides what is right for the country, and the majority was in a long time ago that a welfare system would be part of this nation.
My brother and you seem very much alike in ideals, except he wouldn’t say that he was trying to keep money from those that didn’t earn it. What he would probably say is that he would fight to make it easier for people to earn the money they deserve. Think about it logically, when I worked part time making $5.50 an hour in 2000 in retail my direct sales made that company $1500 a month and I made about $200 a month. That CEO that makes $5 million a year is partially if not solely to blame for that company hemorrhaging billions each year. Its a sad day when we fire those on the bottom rung to increase the bonus of those on the top and its not because those on the top worked so much harder. I’m not going to say that people that abuse the system shouldn’t be removed from it, but that is not the majority.
It is an even sadder day when people are forced onto welfare because that job they had for the last 20 years that paid them $20 an hour just disappeared and after selling their car and their house and living off of that money to try to get by they are finally left with no other choice.
Jake the libertarian
@BradK:
You said this a lot better than me. I am also really happy that that you have mentioned the whole positive/negative rights issue. It is so important, and such a little understood issue.
galefan2004
@Jake the libertarian: I like what you guys have said so far. I mean, I am totally for states rights. I believe in a small central government, and I believe that the government should only reward rights not remove them (which I’m guessing is pos/neg rights). I think I might have a little libertarian in me.
Jake the libertarian
@galefan2004:
Throughout history the vast majority of people have worked far more than 40 hours to make ends meet. My answer is very simple and might seem cold, but work more and work harder. Spending time with your family is a luxury. Vacation is a luxury. Working only 40 hours a week is a luxury. Weekends are a luxury. You get them when you have enough to eat and roof over your head.
My grandparents did this, as did theirs. I know it’s cruel but it is honestly the only sustainable solution. If you plan on having others responsible for your needs then you will one day find yourself wanting.
We have a very fundamental difference here. You see the public coffers as an option to fund a lifestyle. I am telling you that history proves that this bankrupts societies. I am against it.
Jake the libertarian
@galefan2004:
Minor issue, government has not power to grant rights. Rights are bestowed by our creator or the fact that we were born free individuals. Therefore they cannot take away rights either.
BradK
@Jake the libertarian:
100%, NH-born, Live Free or Die libertarian (though I vacillate between little l and big L)!
Agreed that there is too little understanding of what we stand for and are too often associated with radical fringe elements. Ron Paul had to deal with some of this last year. Like a gay gathering with 1,000 “normal” folks and 1 drag queen, guess whose picture makes the news? Libertarianism is a perfect fit IMHO for the queer rights movement. The R’s and the D’s have fucked us silly and won’t even buy us a drink first.
“Aren’t we all a little tired of asking mother government to bless the way we live? It is also terrifying to me how many of these people don’t understand that when they persecute your enemy, surely they come for you soon.”
You and I may be sick of it, but the vast majority of Americans are quite content to suck on that teat — yet bitch when it runs dry or they’re asked to contribute.
The same arguments you so eloquently make against govenment-mandated Robin Hood “wealth redistribution” apply to all government powers. In our pathologically self-absorbed society, people have absolutely no issues with draconian laws being created and vigorously — even fatally — enforced, so long as those laws are only applied to others. Just look at the rabid dogma associated with immigration or the murderous “war” on drugs. Or the gun nuts, the abortion divide, stem cells, whatever.
There is no such thing as Live and Let Live these days. No mutual respect. It’s not enough to be against abortion and simply not have one, you have to go and murder the Dr. that’s giving them. WTF? If you’re against drugs don’t get high. Against same-sex marriage — don’t propose to someone of the same gender. I promise not to invite you. But don’t shit on my wedding.
Back in the olden days they used to call it Puritanism — that nagging feeling that someone, somewhere is having a good time. And must be stopped. Or the more modern rationale, Think Of The Children. Sigh.
BradK
@Jake the libertarian: “…happy that that you have mentioned the whole positive/negative rights issue”
Then you’ll enjoy this:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/how-to-get-63-of-americans-to-support.html
BradK
@BradK: Don’t bother reading through the comments though, it’s rife with troll scat. One quote though is worth noting:
Lord Calvert said…
And don’t be surprised how high the number of people there are who see it that way. As the difference between the two surveys show, there are a very significant number of people who do not see this issue as “legalizing gay marriage” (the positive rights viewpoint) but see it as “limiting the power of government” issue (the negative rights viewpoint). Such people may not necessarily approve of gay-marriage per se but see government regulation of marriage as an unnecessary and unconstitutional expansion of government authority. I see it that way. Government simply does not have the legal authority to regulate the right to freedom of association in such a manner.
Barry Goldwater, who was once called the “Father of Conservatism” saw this issue that way. He strongly opposed the expansion of government power in the personal arena and as the Republican Party absorbed the authoritarian Dixiecrats in during the 60s and 70s (that wing of the Party seizing control of the GOP by the Reagan-era), the principles of limited-government conservatism became unacceptable to the Republican leadership. Goldwater said, “The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay. You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me into it.” Goldwater said this; the man who was once called the poster-child for extremist conservatism. Now he might be considered too liberal for the Democrats, much less the Republicans.
It is issues like these that demonstrate how totally the Republican Party has lost the limited-government conservatives in favor of the big-government, totalitarian Christian-supremacists who want government to dictate religious doctrine in every arena, stripping away the religious independence of the country’s houses of worship in favor of state-mandated theology. Goldwater had a warning such people before he died. He said, “Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.” They simply lack the capacity to see that he was right.
June 11, 2009 7:55 PM
galefan2004
@Jake the libertarian: The truth to that argument is fine and dandy if you aren’t talking about families. Spending time with your children is not a luxury (especially when you start looking at the fact that you pay day care about $1-$2 more an hour to take care of your kids than you actually make). Also, I’m using 40 hours a week as an example. Many men on the lower end work many more hours than that. Hell, my dad worked from sun up to sun down six days a week in construction and still does to this day and still doesn’t make nearly as much as some people make working 40 hours a week.
You are incorrect. I don’t see the public offers as a way to fund a lifestyle. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What I have said over and over is that I believe that corporate America often exploits the poor in this country. The truth is that if the poor in this country got paid what their work was worth (factory jobs for minimum wage, for example, that used to pay about 2x that 30-40 years ago) then working to make ends meet would be possible.
Right now, its almost impossible to live on minimum wage. Not to mention, you take into account that everyone starts on equal footing or you expect the child raised on welfare, where that is all he knows, to overcome insurmountable odds to ever reach a level where he is on equal footing as a child who had his parents pay for his college and was able to focus on college instead of having to work to feed his family (his parents and siblings not his own children) while he went to school. Also, the welfare system makes more money for the people that run it than will ever be spent on the people that get it, and without the poor there would be no labor to exploit. I took over 30 hours of sociology college, and most of my courses focused on this topic.
My great grandparents were one of the few that didn’t get hit hard by the depression, and my grandparents had strong work ethics as well. Another thing you fail to take into consideration is that there aren’t as many jobs in this country as there are people by a very wide margin. If you expect everyone to work (in some cases 80-100 hours a week if they are trying to raise a family on minimum wage) then you better be on Washington’s ass to create more jobs. I’m all for job creation and working, but when you can’t find a job (and we are not at a capacity in this country where we could ever reach even a 99% employment rate) its pretty hard to work.
On the other hand, I do support paid community service much more than I support the welfare system as a whole.
Jake the libertarian
@BradK:
AMEN!!!
Jake the libertarian
@galefan2004:
I have enjoyed our back and forth tonight. I bet BradK might have something to say about your latest response, but I did read it in full and thank you for it.
But I have to get to bed because if I don’t get some sleep, I will be waiting on my gubment check when I don’t make it to work.
Nice chatting with you!
BradK
@Jake the libertarian: “…I will be waiting on my gubment check when I don’t make it to work.”
LOLZ!!
BradK
Economic libertarianism is a mindfield that I’m usually loathe to wade in with one exception: Please do not confuse the American economy (and subsequent crash thereof) to be even remotely related to a free enterprise system. It is indeed rigged and unfair — a government-sanctioned organized crime ring.
Think more along the lines of Tony Soprano’s “waste management consulting” practice. Buy from us and nobody gets hurt. Much.
hand
count me in on the libertarian party. i mean look what barry goldwater had to say back in the 90s.
“You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
we could use that sort of talk from a politician today, let alone a man born in 1909!
adolf
@galefan2004
your last post kind of hit it on the head. the min wage has stayed low enough for people to just get by for a reason. if you are just getting by you will have to borrow money to support your self and amount a debt. having this debt you will be forced to work longer years(ie your dad) instead of retiring. now you working those extra years to support your self, will allow the gov to collect more taxes from you for a longer period of time. “modern day slavery” if you will. they need you to work longer so they can keep taxing you to support their spending.
big corporations are a big problem, they fund money to the gov to continue to keep the american people in debt, buying their products and then laughing to the bank. if we want to help people. we need to push the gov to get behind small business, local companies that produces products that are needed in this world. they would create jobs for people and help them get off welfare and be able to support them selfs. but with high taxes on small biz, workman comp prices, NAFTA, uneven trade with countries. the small business is forced to shut it’s doors when their buyers go to (insert country) where they can make the product at 1/4 the cost. which creates job loss, and puts those employees out of a job. or it forces the employer to cut the employs pay rate to keep the business.
im all for helping people. if i wasn’t taxed as much i would have more money to help. but i also would like to help people get up by giving them a job. where they could work and do it them selfs, not on the backs of other hard working people.
Alexandre
Just one note… @Jake the libertarian
There is a lot more that constitutes being a “fascist” than believe that the “ends justify the means”
Alexandre
than believing*
@Jake the libertarian
But I agree with many of your statements, and I really do think libertarians like Ron Paul have the right idea. Living here in France, and seeing how socialism has completely flopped here has really made me rethink my economic viewpoints.
That being said, the Scandinavian nations are much more socialist than France, they are doing amazingly well (except Iceland)
Jake the libertarian
@Alexandre:
I am well aware that fascism is more than the “end justifying the means”. Michael Moore, in my opinion, fits the full definition nicely.
Glad I have a friend in France. I absolutely ADORE Paris. I can’t wait to make it back there.
Matt Deco
Objectivist self-interest makes so much sense –
that is, until you’re dead.
Investing in anything as finite as yourself is hopelessly absurd.
That’s why I support others, or ‘the collective’ and have no problems paying taxes.
strumpetwindsock
@Alexandre:
Iceland got fucked up because they started taking out foreign currency loans, not because of socialist economic policy.
Me, I am happy I can make my decision based on the bottom line.
We have government-owned car insurance, and pay the lowest rates in the country (some provinces which have private systems pay over three times what we do, and many people are REFUSED insurance).
Ditto our electricity, natural gas and telephone. And of course our medical system is universal and tax-funded.
Free market with no rules is good for big business and other trough-suckers, and that’s about it.
P.S. I am a small business owner, so I make my living by the free market.