Wednesday, March 09, 2011

Green Goons

Traveling to Madison, Wisconsin last week, film maker Michael Moore said, “America is not broke ... Wisconsin is not broke. The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers.”


We know that Michael Moore is not broke. He became a millionaire making dubious documentaries that attack gun owners, oil companies, General Motors (before Obama took it over), and “the rich.” We also know that he’s not starving. He’s the most corpulent communist in the country, but he’s wrong about America not being broke.

The United States government debt is over $14,000,000,000,000. President Obama’s budget will add $1,500,000,000,000 to it next year bringing it to $15,500,000,000,000. Then he proposed to do that again the following year bringing the debt to $17,000,000,000,000. After that, many of us hope he becomes former President Obama, but we’ll see.

Michael Moore is right, however, about the broken moral compass of our rulers. For example, gasoline prices go up nearly every hour. It’s getting so people are afraid to drive more than 150 miles for fear that they won’t be able to afford the gas to get home again. Still, President Obama refuses to allow oil development either on government-owned land or just off our coasts. We have enough petroleum in the ground right here in the United States to last us centuries but Obama, the Democrats and their green goons won’t let us get at it for fear there might be a spill and a sea gull might get oil on its wings. It’s all right though to send $1,000,000,000 a day to Muslim countries who use much of it to finance jihad against us in their radical quest to destroy western civilization. Our liberal Democrat rulers want fossil-fuel energy prices to go up in hopes that Americans will turn to solar panels, windmills and Chevy Volts.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour said, "[T]his administration's policies have been designed to drive up the cost of energy in the name of reducing pollution, in the name of making very expensive alternative fuels more economically competitive. . . . In the United States, it's harder to get a permit to mine coal than it is to get a heart transplant. . . . we are going to produce about 13 percent less petroleum in the U.S. this year than last year. Now how is that good policy at any time when energy security is supposed to be a priority, but particularly a time of turmoil in the Middle East in the oil-producing states?"

Barbour may run for president as a Republican in 2012.

Leaders who would intentionally drive up energy prices for every American do indeed have broken moral compasses as Michael Moore suggests, but that isn’t how those leaders see themselves. When they look in their mirrors, they see modern-day saviors of the world looking back because oil and coal are fossil fuels. Michael Moore, President Obama, and millions of other Chicken Littles have been predicting for decades now that we’re all going to be boiled alive by global warming allegedly caused by burning those evil fossil fuels.

Just by inserting the word “allegedly” in the previous sentence, I’ve made myself a heretic in the rigid religion of Environmentalism. I’ve become the equivalent to a Holocaust-denier, a shill for oil companies, anathema to the “Greens” - just like Haley Barbour.People like Barbour and me are understood by the environmental saviors as suck-ups to “the rich” whom they think are ripping off everybody else on earth. Environmental saviors are also champions of “the poor” and those members of the middle class who bow at the same altars they do. They’re on the side of the public-employee unions who portray themselves as champions of ordinary Americans against “the rich.” They would save us all from the the evil intentions of “the rich” who conspire constantly to make everyone else poorer and destroy the world. Wisconsin and America “are not broke” because there are still some rich people who could pay more taxes. No matter that they’re already paying most of our federal income taxes. No matter that, according to an article on CNBC’s web site: “[S]ocial welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries [in America] this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960” Who do they suppose is paying for all that?Hope this isn't a Wisconsin teacher

Michael Moore and Barack Obama, both millionaires, know how much money we’re all supposed to have. They know how much is enough, how much is too much, and what amount each of us deserves. They would use government to take wealth away from “the rich” and fix everything for everybody so we can all live happily ever after driving our Chevy Volts and plugging them in every thirty miles.

Hang on America. The journey to the Big Green Paradise is going to be expensive and if you’re not broke yet, you soon will be.


Anonymous said...

Yawn....usually I'm entertained by funny radical right wing drivel but this is stale and boring...typical, predictible, rehashed rhetoric. I'll tune in again next week.

Anonymous said...

Many valid points made here but you seem to be missing the mark a bit. (Michael Moore is an NRA member by the way) In fact, I think you make the case for those in control rather than rise beyond the dialectic they have you trapped in.
You mention Obama as if he has the power to change anything or do anything. C'mon Tom, we are all adults here. I don't believe in the easter bunny anymore and I certainly don't believe in the office of president in this country. They are merely puppets. You know it. I know it. The strings are being pulled, and have been pulled, for decades.
Why keep feeding this myth? I don't get it? There is no such thing as left and right anymore! Is it that hard to comprehend that they have us trapped in this endless argument between liberal and conservative while they rob us blind?
And, to ignore the most obvious problem in a "capitalist" society---that the mega rich/corporations benefit while we pay through the nose is amazing.
I'm not sure what your suggesting at the end either? Are you promoting excessive greed? Yeah, let the rich do what they will huh?
Tom, as one of the slaves, you should be outraged by the rich in this country instead of making exscuses for them.
But you choose to promote their agenda, mindlessly. Ah, if it were that simple huh?

Anonymous said...

"We have enough petroleum in the ground right here in the United States to last us centuries"

Can you tell us where you got this information?

Anonymous said...

Good points made by Anon....why does Tom defend the filthy rich exploiters?

Because "the other side", the "liberals" are against them, and Tom is for anything that they are against. No thinking necessary.

I agree that corporations rule the world. But many people pray to "Capitalism", so saying anything against Big Business seems sacriligious to them.

Amazing how Big oil and the others have manipulated into having those they exploit fight to defend them. They laugh as they haul our money off to the bank.

Anonymous said...

Gas Prices...Oil..
It is time to acknowledge that we are responsible for the current chaos in north africa and the middle east.
When oil was discoverd their who gave them the means to extract it? We did.
In addition, we shut down the oil rigs in texas and california in order to get the saudi's, etc. up and running. Truly a twisted and corrupt history we have with oil. It seems to me there is plenty of oil and the manipulation of the prices works to keep us all in check.
But it's a lot easier to blame the liberals or republicans I guess. It certainly requires no thinking and no imagination.
We all should be protesting together instead of arguing with each other...They're winning folks.

Erik said...

"We all should be protesting together instead of arguing with each other...They're winning folks."

Agreed. They are destroying us with the old "Divide & Conquer" technique.

Anonymous said...

"Wisconsin and America “are not broke” because there are still some rich people who could pay more taxes. No matter that they’re already paying most of our federal income taxes."

Please explain how the wealthiest Americans, an astonishingly low number, who control the vast amount of wealth in this country are 'already paying most of our federal taxes'?

That couldn't be further from reality. The Bush tax cuts have been renewed!

Tom McLaughlin said...

The last Anonymous requests:
"Please explain how the wealthiest Americans, an astonishingly low number, who control the vast amount of wealth in this country are 'already paying most of our federal taxes'? "

Okay. If you go here:

Then scroll down to the graph, you'll see.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, a graph from an editor at the wall street journal. Must be true. I will take it at face value and disregard the intense urge to research the information. And I will ignore not only my common sense but things like Warren Buffet saying he was taxed 17.7% on the 47 million he made in 2006 while his secretary was taxed 30% on her 60,000 salary.p

Tom McLaughlin said...

It may well be true that Warren Buffet paid less than his secretary. The tax code is far too complicated even for Obama's Secretary of the Treasury William Geithner to figure out, or so he says. It's nonetheless true that the richest 25% of Americans pay 85% of all federal income taxes and the "poorest" 50% of Americans pay only 3% of all federal income taxes.

You cannot cut taxes on the "poor" when they don't pay any at all. We live in a country where even the "poor" people are fat, just like millionaire Michael Moore.

The best solution is to eliminate the IRS and institute a flat tax on everybody with no exemptions. What do you say to that?

Anonymous said...

"We have enough petroleum in the ground right here in the United States to last us centuries"

I repeat:

Can you tell us where you got this information?

No reply means to me that you pulled that "info" out of some radical right wingers a$$.

Anonymous said...

I truly cannot believe that you actually think that the wealthiest people in this country are taking their fair share of the tax burden.

Quite simply, no, they are not.

Yeah, I read Mr. Moore's article. And I wish I had the time to research his supposed facts. But I don't. However, a very quick google search found the following page:

Makes a lot more sense to me. You see, when a multi-millionaire editor from the Wall Street journal tries to tell me that he is paying more than his fair share I get a little suspect. Although common sense and critical thinking kept me from believing that non sense in the first place.

It's all in how Mr. Moore presents the data. There were a record number of high percentage income earners in this country when his data was gathered. Obviously, more millionaires means more money in taxes---however that DOES NOT mean individuals are paying their fair share! It simply means there were more millionaires! Unbelievable.
Not to mention that there are many many very rich people (like the aforementioned Mr. Buffet) who clearly state they are not being taxed enough! Ahh, hello?

Yes. Get rid of the IRS. And the Federal Reserve. While your at it get rid of the liberals and the conservatives in favor of a population who can think for themselves.

Anonymous said...

"During a discussion of the new estimated U.S. budget deficit on the July 11 edition of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore asserted that "a lot of the new [tax] revenue is coming from rich people," and then asked rhetorically, "if [Bush's tax cut] was a big tax cut for the rich, why are the rich paying more taxes than ever?" In fact, filers earning at least $200,000 paid less federal income tax in 2004 on average than they did in 2002. It is true that the total share of income tax paid by those making more than $200,000 increased between 2002 and 2004, but that is not because wealthy taxpayers individually paid more. While taxes as a percentage of income went down in that bracket, the number of taxpayers in the bracket increased during that time period, as did the average income of those within that bracket. Those making more than $200,000 saw their incomes increase 7 percent between 2002 and 2004, while average decreases in their income tax ranged from nearly 9 percent for those making between $200,000 and $500,000 to more than 19 percent for those with incomes of more than $10 million."

(On NewsHour, WSJ's Moore misled on wealthy Americans' tax burden)

Tom McLaughlin said...

Can't keep track of all you Anonymouses.

Hey, look at that word. Fits, doesn't it? Can't speak openly, so hide like mice. Come out. Steal a little cheese, then hide again.

Most of our reserves of fossil fuel are tied up in sand and shale. With oil at $100 a barrel, it's profitable to develop it and we should. 10-15 years ago, it was projected profitable at $50 per barrel.

There's plenty of the conventional sort of fossil fuel offshore and in Alaska too, but the Green Goons want to protect the mosquitoes in ANWR where nobody visits and the sea gulls in case there's an accident. In their minds, such things are more important than our economy or our security.

Here's the latest Congressional report on those reserves, but it's not really news. We've known about them for a long time.

As for taxing the rich, "fair share" is used a lot. How can it be fair that the rich are taxed at twice or three times the percentage of others? Even with the Bush tax cuts, they're still paying way more than the rest of us.

"Fair" is a flat tax of 20% or 25% or whatever - for everyone. When people vote to spend money, they have to contribute, no matter how much they make. They should not be allowed to vote money out of other people's bank accounts into their own or it's all going to collapse. Yet that's the road Democrats are on. It leads to bankruptcy.

If you don't believe it, look at California. Even the new/old Governor Moonbat is being forced to deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Making fun of all the Anon's?

I thought someone made it clear....they do not want to be put on the "Obama Watch List".

Be sensitive to people's craziness, will you?

Anonymous said...

"In the future, the world’s most successful economies are likely to be the ones that have embraced the ‘green revolution,’ and who have developed significant sources of green energy."

As obvious as that is, we still have many people whining about how "The journey to the Big Green Paradise" is going to be expensive. Of course it is, as was the cost of building railroads in the old west, or in building nuclear power plants, or in building big oil drilling operations.....

Anonymous said...

"As for taxing the rich, "fair share" is used a lot. How can it be fair that the rich are taxed at twice or three times the percentage of others? Even with the Bush tax cuts, they're still paying way more than the rest of us."

Did you read what I posted? You should. I guess it's easier to ignore the reality of the situation and stick to your guns making wild an inaccurate claims. Teacher, huh?
I can't believe I have to explain this to a supposed teacher.

Tom--There are MORE rich than ever.
Collectively YES that means more taxes. BUT that does not mean INDIVIDUALS are paying more!!
It's simple logic!!! They are called tax CUTS for a reason. yet you seem to think they are paying more!! Amazing. Are you serious? I find it extremely hard to believe that you don't understand this. And please show me a rich person who is taxed three times as much as I am.
It simply isn't happening.
Stockholm Syndrome?

Flat tax? Whatever. If you can't see that the rich are benefiting from the current tax laws than good luck to you...

Anonymous said...

Follow up from previous post.

"Those making more than $200,000 saw their incomes increase 7 percent between 2002 and 2004, while average decreases in their income tax ranged from nearly 9 percent for those making between $200,000 and $500,000 to more than 19 percent for those with incomes of more than $10 million."

The results of the Bush Tax Cuts.

Cited from the previous post re: Stephen Moore and PBS Newshour.

Now, please explain how tax cuts for the rich actually means they are getting taxed more? And pie charts and graphs from right wing/left wing publications don't count. Furthermore, pleae do not repeat that the rich are paying more collectively. I get it. The point is and has been that individually richie rich is NOT being fairly taxed. Ask your local millionaire what he paid in federal taxes last year.

Anonymous said...

You talk about
Moore's "...documentaries that attack gun owners, oil companies, General Motors (before Obama took it over), and “the rich.”

So he made a documentary that attacked himself (a gun owner), oil companies (gasp, how dear he attack those saints!), GM (you think it's strange that he stopped attacking them after their amazing recovery under Obama?) and "the rich" (wrong, he did not attack the rich, he attacked capitalism)

Just trying to clear up your misleading babble.

Anonymous said...

testing, testing

Anonymous said...

Wierd, my testing message posted fine, but I have tried posting another message about 10 times now, and although it appears at first after I leave the site and come back it is gone.

Tom McLaughlin said...

Weird, yes. I've gotten ten emails with your post. I'll try to post it for you.

Here goes:

Ooops, forgot to give the source of an earlier quote:

Here is the whole thing:

Oil production in the United States peaked in 1970, and since then industry analysts have been debating just how long global oil reserves will be able to meet the growing demand. Some analysts believe that global production is reaching its peak right now.

You can read about the facts and figures regarding global oil reserves in many articles such as this, but the truth is that no one really knows how much oil is left that can be feasibly extracted. OPEC producers keep it a big secret, as they don’t want to disclose how much oil they have found or think they will find.

Some people think that the world is rapidly reaching the point where the growth in new supplies of oil cannot keep up with the pace of oil depletion. Officials in the oil industry agree that the days of major new finds of cheap oil in well explored countries such as the US are over. There is still plenty of oil, but it is getting ever harder to find. However, as oil extraction technology develops, many prospects that were not economically feasible to develop before are now being developed. In the future, there will be prospects that are not worth developing today that future technologies will be able to handle. For instance, horizontal drilling is a new technology that means new pockets of oil that were previously unaffordable can now be extracted.

Whilst the limits of fossil fuel exploration keep being expanded all the time, the fact still remains that the supply is finite. Technology is enabling companies to find more oil, but the ever harder methods of extraction are ultimately going to bring the price of fossil fuels up to the point where alternative methods energy production become much more viable.

This can only be a good thing. Far from the energy crises, and the ‘return to the stone age’ scenario that some doomsayers predict, the ending of the world’s reliance on fossil fuels which be a huge step for our civilization.

Although this is not a strict rule, generally the world’s most successful economies have got to where they are because of the major fossil fuels of oil, gas and coal. In the future, the world’s most successful economies are likely to be the ones that have embraced the ‘green revolution,’ and who have developed significant sources of green energy. As has been discussed, with the development of new technologies for exploration and extraction, no one knows quite how long fossil fuels will be economically feasible, but without doubt every country in the world right now should be preparing for this eventuality.

Anonymous said...

I take it that you are in agreement that Stephen Moore's information was incorrect and that the Bush tax cuts are actually tax cuts for the wealthy? I assume this b/c you haven't posted a response.

But, we may agree on the oil issue Tom.
I myself believe that on this planet there is much much more oil available than we are told. I have never bought into the peak oil theory by the way.
We should be drilling in the USA.

larrycraig's bathroom said...

Gosh, I thought you teabaggers liked free enterprise and wealth? You certainly expect the rest of us to pay for tax cuts for your rich buddies. The only time you hate money is when a liberal has it.

The Bush administration destroyed the economy with 2 unfunded wars, deregulation, and the tax cuts for the wealthy, yet somehow you have the clownish audacity to pretend that state employees are responsible.

A few pictures of burly, leather clad gay men would have made this much more interesting. For you, too, given your ob...session.

Tom McLaughlin said...


Of course the Bush tax cuts were mostly tax cuts for the wealthy because the wealthy pay most of the taxes as we both agree.

The bottom 50% of earners pay almost no federal income taxes at all, so how can they be cut?

Nancy Pelosi passed a bill back in January of 2008 giving "rebate" checks to tens of millions of Americans who didn't pay any taxes at all. How could she call them rebates? I wrote about that here:

For a very high percentage of Americans, April 15th is a payday. They get checks from the government in the form of the "earned income tax credit."

The best solution is a flat tax. One percentage for everyone. No deductions. No tax lawyers. No voluminous tax code. Simple. Everyone understands. When we vote for government to spend more money, we pay too. We cannot vote money out of someone else's pocket without voting the same percentage out of our own.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, yeah flat tax...Sure.
Why is it that you have to try and take the focus of the real issue that we have been going back and forth about? The fact that the rich in this country are not sharing the tax burden fairly. For the fourth time, the rise in the number of people making over 200k/year rose to all time levels in 2003/4. So, yes Tom, we agree that more people making more money means more money collectively on taxes. A child knows that. However, rich people are not being taxed more individually. DO you see that? They are getting tax breaks. That is how it is at this very moment in this country. My god, I loathe taking on the sophomoric "told you so" attitude here but you really leave me no other choice. Yes, the tax codes are a joke, agreed. Of course there is a simpler and more fair solution. and as far as this goes:

The bottom 50% of earners pay almost no federal income taxes at all, so how can they be cut?

Again, (and i'll simply ignore your throwing numbers around w/no citation) I guess this is another attempt at confusing the argument even more? Individually it seems the majority of "poor" people, people making under 200k I guess?, are paying their fair share of taxes. Do you feel you are being taxed too little? That statement, like Moore's article, is misleading and not really true.

This all began as you threw out Stephen Moore's article as proof that the wealthy are paying the majority of federal taxes. As I said Tom, it's not about the collective amount, it IS about the individual tax burden of those making over 200-500k. It's that simple. They can contribute more b/c they have more. Yes, everyone should pay their fair share. I just don't understand why you choose to defend the people who benefit on the back of guys like us? It's amazing really.

So, can you please answer the freakin' question--at least acknowledge it without talking about a flat tax and poor people not paying enough: Would you say that on an individual basis the rich are paying their fair share of taxes?

Anonymous said...

Hey--I get it...You made a mistake.
I forgive you...Here's some more
info on taxes, etc. from the press herald today..Making it local. But I guess you will still insist that the rich are being bullied. They must love you.

"Maine's wealthiest residents will benefit the most from these cuts. One percent of households, those earning more than $360,000, will see their income taxes go down by $2,700. The budget also would double the size of estates that are exempt from the estate tax from $1 million to $2 million, a provision that would benefit only about 550 Maine families and cost the rest of us $30 million."

Anonymous said...

...What make sit worse, your arguing for the wealthy, is that their wealth is not sustained through yearly salaries. Capital gains, inheritance, etc. etc. But you'd just as soon not have those things taxed huh? Unbelievable. Why you want to be on their side is beyond me. Maybe you share the fetish of materialism like the rest of the sheep and look at the wealthy as better than you?

Tom McLaughlin said...

I use to resent the rich as you do when I was a young and foolish liberal, when I believed the economic pie was a fixed entity. If the rich had more, the rest of us had less. But I don't see it that way anymore.

Some inherit wealth and some earn it. Few steal it from "the poor" as Democrat propaganda insists. Those who earn it usually benefit the rest of us while they do and increase the economic pie. That's how free enterprise benefits the USA, and if we stifle it with confiscatory taxation, we kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

That's what Democrats do when they're in power.

Anonymous said...

And STILL no acknowledgment of your error. Sgt. Schultz huh? It's really hard to take you seriously at this point. If you can't admit that your statements were misleading and misinformed then you have no integrity.

I am not a liberal, thank you. I choose to view the world as objectively as possible and stick to the vision of our founding fathers had where political parties are concerned--i.e. I don't waste my time with them. I think for myself and refuse to let anyone tell me how to act. Furthermore, I try and transcend the inherently divisive nature of party politics for more imaginative and practical approaches. Do you teach that there are only two sides to every issue?

I have never stated resenting the rich. However, I have stated, repeatedly, that the wealthy are not taxed fairly on an individual basis in this country. It's a documented fact. A fact you continue to ignore by deflection. I get it, You can't admit you're wrong. It's that simple.

You probably think the wall st. bankers are good people.

The bottom line here is excessive greed and the continuing orgy of materialism that we are devoted to in this country are not working. How can you possibly defend how the bankers on wall st. are being treated after blatantly breaking the law? You think the rich spread it around huh? Look at those goons---lot of sharing going there huh? Predatory lending is just something the rich do because they can--hey they're rich, the definition of success here in America. You got more stuff than me? Well, than you must be better than me!

So, you don't believe that being rich means that you have more? Interesting. And confusing.

I'm not too sure about this fantasy that the rich in this country are being overtaxed and that they love to spread their wealth around to the benefit of us all. Ahh, have you been awake for the past 10 years? Deregulation and excessive greed have gotten us where Tom?

You obviously have no experience with the wealthy and their finances.

Thomas Jefferson said that "All Men are Created Equal."
Unless your poor I guess. But, if you're poor you must not be trying huh?

Keep those blinders on Tom. Keep defending the people who don't need any defending. Continue to filter the world through the lens of a political party because that is the epitome of open-mindedness and freedom. As I said before, stockholm syndrome.

Good luck to you...I'm done here.

Peter said...

" we can all live happily ever after driving our Chevy Volts and plugging them in every thirty miles."

Hey Tom, statements like this make me think of your possible forefathers who scoffed at the Wright brothers with similar statements...

" they can live happily ever after flying their aeroplanes and having to take off again every 12 seconds"

Anonymous said...

Holy crap did that last post about the Wright brothers crack me up!

Tom sure got called out for being the non-forward looking individual that he is...


Tom McLaughlin said...

You Anonymous fellows can invest in Chevy Volts if you want. Maybe you'll get rich if they sell more than the ten per day people purchased during the month of February. Americans don't want Chevy Volts, but we taxpayers are forced to subsidize them in two ways.

First, when Obama bails out General Motors with our money to protect his union fat cats, installs a "car czar" to run it, avoiding the constitutional "advice and consent" of the Senate, and orders them to build cars that nobody but aging hippies want to buy.

Second, when he uses the IRS to give tax breaks to those balding, pot-bellied, pony-tailed, green hippies that the rest of us have to make up with our taxes.

Wilbur and Orville developed their invention without government. Let Chevy do that if they wish, but I don't want you starry-eyed, green goons in my wallet. Use your own money for your foolish ventures but remember: "A fool and his money are soon parted."

Anonymous said...

So you like the tax breaks Bush gave to all the uber-rich fat cats, you just have a problem with anybody with a pony-tail getting tax breaks. Or is the problem that these people are actually trying to develop something that will get us off the Big Oil teat and help the world?

You want people to "keep out of your wallet" because god forbid your money is used to make the world better for future's ME, ME, ME, and NOW, NOW, NOW, right?

You should get together and have a whine session with Ray Shakir about the agonies of helping children eat lunch and federally funded medical research.