So as if I didn’t have enough reason to want him out of the media forever, Michael Moore exhibits, once again, his idiocy on national television – this time on Hannity.
Apparently, in Michael Moore’s ridiculous little world, foreclosed homeowners are comparable to rape victims.
The conversation went something like this:
Hannity: If you put your name on the dotted line in a legal document, don’t you bear responsibility?
Moore: These people have been deceived and they’ve been exploited. You know, this is like – this is like …
Hannity: No responsibility at all for them?
Moore: No, this is like asking a woman how short was your skirt after she’s been raped.
Hannity: Aw, that’s not …
Moore: That’s not, that’s not – you wouldn’t, you wouldn’t blame the victim for that.
Hannity: Come on, Michael.
Moore: Why were you walking on that side a town?
Hannity: So they shouldn’t – if there were balloon payments they shouldn’t have read it? They shouldn’t have hired a lawyer to read it for them?
Moore: A poor person?
Except… if they were poor should they be getting a new mortgage? If they can’t afford a lawyer to look over a document that renders them in debt the price of a house, they probably shouldn’t be buying. That’s what rentals are for.
No one forced them to buy a house, and rape is by definition an act of force. Mortgage companies, which are certainly not perfect, are not rapists. If you signed the mortgage you are a willing participant, end of story. You live with the consequences of those actions.
I suppose in Michael Moore’s world personal accountability doesn’t exist. Except if you drive a car or breathe CO2. Because then you are clearly responsible for the end of the world.
Thank you Palin for talking sense. If she keeps coming out with these, I might change my opinion of her as a national candidate.
Now, some liberals got whiny. A prime example of just how badly she freaks them out. Apparently, Palin has no authority to write op-eds?
It’s quite another to believe that she actually knows or cares sufficiently about cap-and-trade and environmental legislation to care enough to write about it for a major newspaper. And even if she does, what possible justification on Earth is there for the Post publishing her?
The only one I can think of is to “get people talking” about the Post page. To create “buzz.” Well, there’s good “buzz” and bad “buzz.” This is definitely the latter. It’s not only that Palin has no constituency to speak of. It’s not even that she has been trashed by the right, in addition to criticism by the left. She has no authority to write an article like this and the Post has no business running one.
Except, you know, that energy was the one thing that most people agreed was Palin’s strong suit, and she shows considerable command of the subject. You can say a lot of things about her, but she is not ignorant on energy policy. The global warming fear mongers are losing more ground every day, and I think it’s starting to freak them out. With their leader being sued for fraud by 30,000 scientists, I expect the dialog to deteriorate even further. It’s that whole “dog in a corner” thing – when backed into a corner, they’ll come out fighting. They’ll barrage us with the same fear monger tactics they accuse the Right of… however, we are apparently supposed to be afraid of Carbon, which is the foundation of out biological make up, and not, for example, terrorists. Because THEN it’s fear mongering.
Everyone with a brain knows that op-eds are OPINION pieces. The Post can publish whoever they want to. Palin wrote a solid piece, but since she’s Sarah Palin, apparently she has no authority? What grounds do you base that on? She’s a national figure who was arguably brought on to the campaign primarily BECAUSE of her command of energy issues. Why would she NOT be qualified to write a piece in her area of expertise? Oh, right. I forgot. She’s dumber than a brick and can never offer anything valuable to society. Right. I’ll shut up now.
The piece itself was outstanding, in my opinion. My favorite excerpt:
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
Thank goodness. I so appreciate her tone lately – hinting beyond the GOP to a broader support for conservative principles. I don’t believe for a second that there is one Democrat that would allow her to stump for them at this point, but I think that things are changing, and I’m thrilled to see her make these moves. So, go read her piece. I have said over and over that I don’t think she’ll ever be a national figure, but I would love for her to prove me wrong.
*This article was written by Rob at Leaning Right. This article does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of Tabitha Hale. Direct your hateful comments to me. *
In 1988 when George HW Bush was running for president he used that ever so famous line “Read My Lips: No New Taxes.” This line, written by the elegant Peggy Noonan, has become a buzzphrase connected to the word “Liar.” He raised taxes and lost re-election.
Remember September 12, 2008 when then-Senator Barack Obama spoke to a crowd in New Hampshire?
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes” (September 12, 2008, Dover, NH)
I will set aside all arguments on how raising taxes on anyone regardless of income is bogus. It is easier to point out that this statement was simply not true.
First, and probably with the support of many “social conservatives” (I hate that term but had to use it here), the first tax increase came in early April entering the President’s 4th month in office when he signed one of the largest tax increases on the working class in history.
Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.
I make under $250,000 a year. In fact, I make around 10% of that. I smoke. My taxes went up. And hold your tongue on that “you can choose to stop killing yourself” crap because that argument doesnt hold any water. You can quit buying gas and turn down that promotion that would put you in a new tax bracket. Taxing people for their personal habits and decisions is wrong. End of story.
NOW the most recent tax increase that is on everyone’s mind is what came about with this cap and trade fiasco, the president’s first major attempt at combatting the so-called climate crisis.
The Congressional Budget Office… estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That’s about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them).
A governing body caps the amount of pollutants that can be released into the atmosphere, then mandates that companies emitting those pollutants must hold permits to cover the amount of pollutants they expel. To reduce pollution, the governing body slowly reduces the number of allowances available over time…
…when participants place a bid, they name the amount they’re willing to pay per allowance and the number of allowances they’d like to purchase……The bids are then collected and ordered according to price. Starting at the top of the list, with the highest bids, the auction overseer works his way down, adding the number of allowances requested until he reaches the total number of allowances offered in that auction. When he reaches that point, he draws a line; everyone above the line receives the number of allowances they requested at the lowest winning bid – the price closest to, but still above, the line. This is known as the clearing price, the price that every winning bidder will pay for their allowances, no matter what price they originally bid.
So the companies that offer to pay the most, pay the same amount as those that offer to pay the least, so long as the government believes that that least amount is acceptable. The companies that offer to pay less than what the government determines is acceptable get screwed out of the energy that they may need.
To use a word that people will accuse of being extreme, this is the definition of Fascism.
Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it.
‘But.. But.. Mister Rob… The taxes are against evil corporations that want the ocean to swallow up New York City and cast the world into an ice age. The working class is left alone.’
Unless of course you work for a corporation. Like Wal Mart, Microsoft, Google, GM, GE, and the rest. The government is cutting emissions by a whopping 15%, so naturally the price will increase to reflect the demand for the 85% of energy that is left. Those price increases will be reflected in the very same budget that reflects your wages. And I have a hard time believing that companies already just blow money on energy that they don’t need, but let’s say they cut every corner to bring their usage down to their minimal requirements with their current labor force. What’s the decrease? A whopping 1/6 of their energy budget? Try cutting your food budget by 15% and see if you don’t have to cut back on other things.
Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity, and 25 states get more than 50% of their electricity from conventional coal-fired generation. In Ohio, it totals 86%, according to the Energy Information Administration. Ratepayers in Indiana (94%), Missouri (85%), New Mexico (80%), Pennsylvania (56%), West Virginia (98%) and Wyoming (95%) are going to get soaked.
Those billionaires in New Mexico, West Virginia and Whyoming man. Those filthy rich bastards will be paying all these energy taxes. wait…
Who’s going to be benefitting without paying those taxes? Looks like the poor, hungry people in the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, and New York. Wait…
The way to “save the planet” is not to ban phosphates and live with nasty dishes, or use recycling methods that burn through more energy than it takes to create new material, or share bathwater or whatever the hippies are doing. Use the technology and brains we have to build economically viable alternatives – because people will NOT spend the extra money just to be “green”.