If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Michael Moore tells Occupy that top 1% need to hand out millions, but won't answer question about him giving out a million of his own $50 million   (youtube.com) divider line 560
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2285 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2011 at 12:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



560 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-11-01 10:54:55 AM
That's his private McDonald's emergency fund...
 
2011-11-01 11:00:35 AM
I agree with this guy. If Michael Moore can keep his millions while calling on guys with more millions to "give back" some of their money then why can't people with no millions who paid to see Moore's movies ask for some of that money back?

Funny how someone who has made a career of mocking those in power running away from the cameras when asked awkward questions won't, or can't, deal with that situation when he is the one being questioned.
 
2011-11-01 11:11:07 AM
Well, maybe the cutoff for donations is $51 million. Did you think about that, subby?
 
2011-11-01 11:11:32 AM
americanandproud.net

/ hoo hoo hoo ....
 
2011-11-01 11:13:45 AM

Pocket Ninja: Well, maybe the cutoff for donations is $51 million. Did you think about that, subby?


So Moore works like the Disney Copyright principle? "Copyright to last the age of Mickey Mouse + 1 year"? So his is "Obscene wealth is my millions + $1"?
 
2011-11-01 11:16:17 AM
Did he say "They spend that much on lunch."?
 
2011-11-01 11:17:21 AM

Flint Ironstag: So his is "Obscene wealth is my millions + $1"?


Well, a reasonable person would want to build in a better buffer than that. I mean, if you're just over the limit by $1 and you lose that dollar, you'd be pretty farked now, wouldn't you? That's not even enough to buy a coffee at Starbucks.
 
2011-11-01 11:23:22 AM
Rumor has it Mr. Moore is overweight. We should focus on that.
 
2011-11-01 11:26:14 AM

Flint Ironstag: I agree with this guy. If Michael Moore can keep his millions while calling on guys with more millions to "give back" some of their money then why can't people with no millions who paid to see Moore's movies ask for some of that money back?


I'm pretty sure he didn't tell them they were buying tickets to Atlas Shrugged Part One and then threw them into an adjustable rate sub-prime documentary.

And he also didn't collapse the economy and make trillions of dollars of wealth just disappear.

Minor details, I know...
 
2011-11-01 11:26:14 AM
He needs that money so he can buy food. He eats a lot of food. He is fat. Thats the joke.
 
2011-11-01 11:28:21 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Rumor has it Mr. Moore is overweight. We should focus on that.


We've already determined that overweight = his weight + 1 pound.
 
2011-11-01 11:28:46 AM
The lowest of the Forbes 400 is worth over a billion dollars. Billion. B. Buh, buh. Billion. http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#p_40_s_arank_All%20industries_All%20 states_All%20categories_

For the lot of you that can't multiply, that's "a lot more" than Moore's net worth. Dude isn't anywhere near the top 400.

/giving - at most - 0.1% of your net worth is SO. difficult. when you're a billionaire.
//moore already donated way more to charity; no, you google it, you retard.
 
2011-11-01 11:30:05 AM
Whoops.

Link (new window)

/in case copypasta is too hard for you
 
2011-11-01 11:33:44 AM
Oh how cute... originally from Newsbusters, and ratings disabled.

He demands that Moore answer the question and that his freedom of speech has been violated, but can't handle having his own video thumbsed-down. Derp.

/tried posting but keep getting error
 
2011-11-01 11:43:20 AM

Wendy's Chili: Flint Ironstag: I agree with this guy. If Michael Moore can keep his millions while calling on guys with more millions to "give back" some of their money then why can't people with no millions who paid to see Moore's movies ask for some of that money back?

I'm pretty sure he didn't tell them they were buying tickets to Atlas Shrugged Part One and then threw them into an adjustable rate sub-prime documentary.

And he also didn't collapse the economy and make trillions of dollars of wealth just disappear.

Minor details, I know...


Then why not call for that to be dealt with? There should be investigation into fraud and anyone shown to have acted illegally prosecuted.

So why not call for that instead of a blanket "Everyone over a certain wealth must give up some of their wealth!"?

Because once you make it a simple "If they have money they are guilty" matter then the fact that you are, by the standards of the vast majority of people, obscenely wealthy cannot be swept under the carpet and ignored.

If the people he is calling on are the top 1% then Moore himself is in the top 1.2%.
 
2011-11-01 12:16:05 PM

gameshowhost: The lowest of the Forbes 400 is worth over a billion dollars. Billion. B. Buh, buh. Billion. http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#p_40_s_arank_All%20industries_All%20 states_All%20categories_

For the lot of you that can't multiply, that's "a lot more" than Moore's net worth. Dude isn't anywhere near the top 400.

/giving - at most - 0.1% of your net worth is SO. difficult. when you're a billionaire.
//moore already donated way more to charity; no, you google it, you retard.


gameshowhost: Whoops.

Link (new window)

/in case copypasta is too hard for you


gameshowhost: Oh how cute... originally from Newsbusters, and ratings disabled.

He demands that Moore answer the question and that his freedom of speech has been violated, but can't handle having his own video thumbsed-down. Derp.

/tried posting but keep getting error


I am sensing a man-crush
 
2011-11-01 12:18:58 PM
Libby Lib Liberal here.....and anyone criticizing him for this is absolutely justified. If he's going to say things like that then he should be called on it, but his message doesn't accurately reflect OWS.

Occupy isn't about "all the rich people should give all their money away", even though some people seem to think so. It's about a broken system where the rich are controlling the government.
 
2011-11-01 12:21:35 PM
Here is a deep fried dollar to tape over your blowhole.

i798.photobucket.com
 
2011-11-01 12:22:51 PM

Flint Ironstag: Wendy's Chili: Flint Ironstag: I agree with this guy. If Michael Moore can keep his millions while calling on guys with more millions to "give back" some of their money then why can't people with no millions who paid to see Moore's movies ask for some of that money back?

I'm pretty sure he didn't tell them they were buying tickets to Atlas Shrugged Part One and then threw them into an adjustable rate sub-prime documentary.

And he also didn't collapse the economy and make trillions of dollars of wealth just disappear.

Minor details, I know...

Then why not call for that to be dealt with? There should be investigation into fraud and anyone shown to have acted illegally prosecuted.

So why not call for that instead of a blanket "Everyone over a certain wealth must give up some of their wealth!"?

Because once you make it a simple "If they have money they are guilty" matter then the fact that you are, by the standards of the vast majority of people, obscenely wealthy cannot be swept under the carpet and ignored.

If the people he is calling on are the top 1% then Moore himself is in the top 1.2%.


Well, they are two seperate, but related issues.

The bankers responsible for the mess need to be held accountable. That's why people are protesting Wall Street, and not random affluent suburbs where most rich people live.

But the rich in general also need to pay more into government. Tax rates are at near-record lows and a lot of people in Washington--funded by those very same bankers--want to lower them even more and further gut programs for law enforcement, education, research, infrastructure, aid for the old and sick, and even nuclear security to pay for it. Lay-offs of hundreds of thousands of public employees have intensified this recession and demands are being made to lay off more because of the inside-the-beltway allergy to tax hikes.

The anger at the protests is mostly directed at those who've done the most damage, not at everybody who happens to earn over a certain threshold. And I'm sure Mr. Moore falls into the top 1%, so when he calls for tax hikes, he's calling for his own taxes to be raised. A lot of people say, "Hurr hurr, he could always donate to the government," when a rich person calls for higher taxes, but even they are smart enough to know that our budget problems can't be solved by a single person.
 
2011-11-01 12:24:50 PM

birchman: Occupy isn't about "all the rich people should give all their money away", even though some people seem to think so. It's about a broken system where the rich are controlling the government.


The protesters don't hate Capitalism. They hate what's been done to it. - Maher
 
2011-11-01 12:25:21 PM
So because even Michael Moore won't voluntarily hand over money as a donation to the IRS we should give tax cuts to the rich and vote republican.
 
2011-11-01 12:25:52 PM
I agree with the heckler dude making the video.
 
2011-11-01 12:28:04 PM
The difference being that Michael Moore actually earned his money by creating and selling a product, whereas the majority of the 1% came by their money by falling out of the correct vagina and playing in a game already rigged in their favor.
 
2011-11-01 12:28:14 PM
I like how Moore claims that the rich spend $1,000,000 on lunch. Maybe that explains why this 1% guy is so fat.

Also amusing how he uses the phrase "give back". No it isn't giving something back, it is their money that they earned. If they give you, or a charity, or the IRS an extra $1M it isn't giving anything back, it is charity.
 
2011-11-01 12:28:21 PM

Headso: So because even Michael Moore won't voluntarily hand over money as a donation to the IRS we should give tax cuts to the rich and vote republican.


Yes. For Jesus.
 
2011-11-01 12:29:09 PM

Headso: So because even Michael Moore won't voluntarily hand over money as a donation to the IRS we should give tax cuts to the rich and vote republican.


no. fark likes to point out hypocrisy, except when the left does it.
 
2011-11-01 12:29:49 PM

Flint Ironstag: I agree with this guy. If Michael Moore can keep his millions while calling on guys with more millions to "give back" some of their money then why can't people with no millions who paid to see Moore's movies ask for some of that money back?

Funny how someone who has made a career of mocking those in power running away from the cameras when asked awkward questions won't, or can't, deal with that situation when he is the one being questioned.


You can ask. It is a free Country. At lease Moore made a product that people enjoyed and didn't make his wealth by moving numbers around or exporting jobs.

Plus, Moore actually gives a huge chunk of his money to charitable causes.
 
2011-11-01 12:30:43 PM
He's in a lose/lose situation.

If he doesn't donate a good chunk of his money, he's called a hypocrite.

If he does, he gets accused of bankrolling the protestors.

//I think Mark Cuban should donate some money to OWS, if he hasn't already.
 
2011-11-01 12:31:07 PM
No one cares what this douche thinks.
 
2011-11-01 12:31:54 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: So because even Michael Moore won't voluntarily hand over money as a donation to the IRS we should give tax cuts to the rich and vote republican.

no. fark likes to point out hypocrisy, except when the left does it.


Because if we give you an inch you take parsec.
 
2011-11-01 12:32:19 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: No it isn't giving something back, it is their money that they earned


yes because they earn money in a vacuum and don't benefit from government spending.
 
2011-11-01 12:32:28 PM

gameshowhost: The lowest of the Forbes 400 is worth over a billion dollars. Billion. B. Buh, buh. Billion. http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#p_40_s_arank_All%20industries_All%20 states_All%20categories_

For the lot of you that can't multiply, that's "a lot more" than Moore's net worth. Dude isn't anywhere near the top 400.

/giving - at most - 0.1% of your net worth is SO. difficult. when you're a billionaire.
//moore already donated way more to charity; no, you google it, you retard.


are you saying that the top 400 don't give money to charity or set up foundations to give their money away?
I didn't know that.

people are just angry that it isn't going to them and is instead going to the truly needy.
 
2011-11-01 12:32:58 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Did he say "They spend that much on lunch."?


He did.

Then the video was abruptly edited, so that we don't find out what he said in reference to the request for a million of his dollars.
 
2011-11-01 12:33:47 PM
If Moore is a millionare and asking for tax increases on millionares isn't he already offering to pony up more?
 
2011-11-01 12:34:20 PM
Nobody in their right mind would give away their money without expecting some sort of benefit. The worst part is, that makes Moore the rational one.
 
2011-11-01 12:35:31 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I like how Moore claims that the rich spend $1,000,000 on lunch. Maybe that explains why this 1% guy is so fat.

Also amusing how he uses the phrase "give back". No it isn't giving something back, it is their money that they earned. If they give you, or a charity, or the IRS an extra $1M it isn't giving anything back, it is charity.


This is how I look at it and assumeing what he is looking at it also. Lets use the 50th richest guy in forbes. He has 6.2B now take 1M and divide that into 6.2B and you get 0.016% of his total worth! Now take that percent and times it by a normal mans wage of $30k a year and you get $4.83 which is "lunch money".
 
2011-11-01 12:35:42 PM
You idiots fail to realize that he would probably be glad to donate $1M towards things that actually help progress a country, like education, energy, infrastructure in general.

There is a huge misconception in this country that charities are the solution to fix problems, the same charities have been around for decades and have not progressed the cause by any means, I'm not against charity, I'm just saying that non-profits are as lucrative as for-profit institutions and want to keep it that way thus there is really no incentive to fix the cause they are promoting that is making them incredibly rich.

Be charitable, but don't give to large charities, excellent case in point is the Red Cross, look up all their hideous dealings and track record, they are probably the worst of them all, in many instances making the situation worst.
 
2011-11-01 12:36:20 PM
Michael Moore needs to shut the hell up. He is not helping. Here's from an email he wrote to his supporters:

I do very well - and for a documentary filmmaker, I do extremely well. That, too, drives conservatives bonkers."You're rich because of capitalism!" they scream at me. Um, no. Didn't you take Econ 101? Capitalism is a system, a pyramid scheme of sorts, that exploits the vast majority so that the few at the top can enrich themselves more. I make my money the old school, honest way by making things. Some years I earn a boatload of cash. Other years, like last year, I don't have a job (no movie, no book) and so I make a lot less.

I can't tell what's worse: that he doesn't know what capitalism is, and can't admit to profiting from it, or claiming to have no job while still making money. He's just very tone-deaf, and isn't self-aware to see that he sounds like an asshole.

Link (new window)
 
2011-11-01 12:36:27 PM
I love this argument slightly more than the "democrats are racist because they didn't vote for the civil rights bill like the GOP" one. Just enough obtuse and indignation to completely miss reality.
 
2011-11-01 12:36:46 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Rumor has it Mr. Moore is overweight. We should focus on that.


Like this was a Gov Christie thread?
 
2011-11-01 12:36:46 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: So because even Michael Moore won't voluntarily hand over money as a donation to the IRS we should give tax cuts to the rich and vote republican.

no. fark likes to point out hypocrisy, except when the left does it.


yeah you should take that away from the story and not that all wealthy people try to mitigate their tax burden as an overhead cost. While republican middle class suckers like you try to advocate for a tax bracket that you'll never obtain.
 
2011-11-01 12:37:15 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I like how Moore claims that the rich spend $1,000,000 on lunch. Maybe that explains why this 1% guy is so fat.

Also amusing how he uses the phrase "give back". No it isn't giving something back, it is their money that they earned. If they give you, or a charity, or the IRS an extra $1M it isn't giving anything back, it is charity.


You want to take this one, Elizabeth Warren?

I hear all this, you know, "Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever."-No!

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

You built a factory out there-good for you! But I want to be clear.

You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.

You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea-God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
 
2011-11-01 12:38:10 PM

pippi longstocking: You idiots fail to realize that he would probably be glad to donate $1M towards things that actually help progress a country, like education, energy, infrastructure in general.

There is a huge misconception in this country that charities are the solution to fix problems, the same charities have been around for decades and have not progressed the cause by any means, I'm not against charity, I'm just saying that non-profits are as lucrative as for-profit institutions and want to keep it that way thus there is really no incentive to fix the cause they are promoting that is making them incredibly rich.

Be charitable, but don't give to large charities, excellent case in point is the Red Cross, look up all their hideous dealings and track record, they are probably the worst of them all, in many instances making the situation worst.


He would be glad to? What's stopping him? For somebody constantly crying about the greedy rich and capitalism, he sure takes full advantage of both situations himself. How much money does one guy need? Why isn't he giving away $45 million of his dollars. Is $5 million really not enough?
 
2011-11-01 12:38:16 PM

bartink: No one cares what this douche thinks.



Were that true, I doubt he'd be worth 50 mil.
 
2011-11-01 12:38:17 PM

EWreckedSean: Like this was a Gov Christie thread?


Yes, Sean, both sides are bad. And the weight thing is childish and stupid when either one goes after it.
 
2011-11-01 12:39:47 PM

Flint Ironstag: If Michael Moore can keep his millions while calling on guys with more millions to "give back" some of their money then why can't people with no millions who paid to see Moore's movies ask for some of that money back?


Why would anyone allow a gate condition for participation in a movement be set by its enemies? Why would you even be involved in the discussion?

Let's just say you matter:

Because Michael Moore, by virtue of his decades of public activism has been "blessed". The money he made wasn't taken from the American taxpayer by deceit. He hasn't asked for a bailout. He's using his time and celebrity to champion the OWS cause. In other words, he's given enough already. And, if the result of OWS is more taxes on income for the wealthy, he'll end up paying more, since his income is actual income from labor, not capital gains on investment income.

Trying to frame Michael Moore as a hypocrite is only going to work on people who already hate Michael Moore. May as well have simply made a fat joke.
 
2011-11-01 12:40:04 PM

tricycleracer: tenpoundsofcheese: Headso: So because even Michael Moore won't voluntarily hand over money as a donation to the IRS we should give tax cuts to the rich and vote republican.

no. fark likes to point out hypocrisy, except when the left does it.

Because if we give you an inch you take parsec.


yeah, I hear that the right says the same thing about increasing taxes.
 
2011-11-01 12:40:16 PM

tenpoundsofcheese:
people are just angry that it isn't going to them and is instead going to the truly needy.


People want them to put it towards our debt not given to one person. If he would give 1M then that would be 2% of his money. So are you expecting the Forbes 400th ranked person to give 24M which would be the equivalant amount of their net worth? The thing is it will never be just given it must be taken in the form of taxes or it will never happen. Everyone wants to keep as much as they can, it's our instinct as humans to accumulate as much as we can but we have to do something.
 
2011-11-01 12:40:47 PM

Flint Ironstag: I agree with this guy. If Michael Moore can keep his millions while calling on guys with more millions to "give back" some of their money then why can't people with no millions who paid to see Moore's movies ask for some of that money back?

Funny how someone who has made a career of mocking those in power running away from the cameras when asked awkward questions won't, or can't, deal with that situation when he is the one being questioned.


--------------

Michael Moore is rich, but he could give every dollar of his $50M and it would literally pay for about 4 hours worth of costs of just the war in Afghanistan.

The power is not in one rich guy giving up all his wealth, it's in all rich guys giving up a tiny piece of their wealth.
 
2011-11-01 12:41:11 PM
Disingenuous headline is disingenuous.

What we need is regulation crafted to combat corrupt business practices and a higher total tax rate on the wealthy. Moore would be affected by the latter just as much as the next $50-millionaire, so asking "FAT GUY Y U NO GIMME MONEY" is likely a deliberate attempt to reframe the narrative.

/DNWTFV, but if the videographer actually got shoved around then that's not good, regardless of his asshattery.
 
Displayed 50 of 560 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report