Workingclass Conservative: Fred Thompson responds to Michael Moore challenge

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Fred Thompson responds to Michael Moore challenge

Another reason to like Fred Thompson.

2 comments:

Nevum said...: Let me put it like this. Michael Moore would be a much better president than Fred Thompson. Cheers.; May 19, 2007 at 10:19 AM
JMK said...: Is that what you're looking for in a President BW< FAT, DUMB and STUPID?

In that case, Moore's your man.

Now there are Liberals I begrudgingly respect, they at least try to make a case for their Liberal ideas. I've met almost none on the net.

A neighbor of mine who is an ex-Navy man and an adjunct at a nearby College is such a person.

I've been grappling with a proposal he put to me the other day that went, "The private sector produces something on the order of $12 TRILLION per year. Do you (that would be me, JMK) know what the cost of a guaranteed income of $70,000/year per family would cost in America? Well, given that there are about 140 million families, it would cost about $1 TRILLION/year! That's all, less than 10% of that total would give every American family a base income they could live very well on. There wouldn't be any need for any other social programs, that should be good news to you (again me...and it would), and everyone would be well taken care of. What's your basic problem with something like that?"

Well, there are LOTS wrong with it, and while I'm still working on the details of that response, one is that although the private sector PRODUCES some $12 Trillion dollars worth of goods & services, salaries, etc. each year, that is NOT, by any stretch, it's PROFIT MARGIN.

It would take the confiscation of almost all (perhaps even more than, which is impossible) the profit margin of Corporate America to produce that "guaranteed income." That's the naivete of the American Liberal in a nutshell.

And that's only the start of the problem!

Who'd work!

Given that many Conservatives (24.7%) and almost ALL Liberals (96.4%) are hopelessly lazy, most Americans would sit on their asses if they were given the choice not to have to work.

That means, in order to produce that "free income" those who'd prefer to sit at home would have to be forced to work at the point of a gun, or threat of jail, if need be.

I'll do the forcing....I'LL DO THE FORCING!!! Please, pick me...pick ME!!!

Seriously though, they'd have to be forced to work, making that "guaranteed income" anything but "free."

There's lot s more, but the point is that Michael Moore would probably agree with my neighbor, BUT he isn't even smart enough to pose such an interesting, though deeply flawed question.

Moore is a below average social critic made good (he's sold some poor quality "art" in the form of some films).

He is NOT a man with any solutions.

Asked about the tax burden in America he once said, "Americans are under-taxed!"

When asked what percentage of their income average Americans pay in taxes each year, he said, "I'm not sure, around 20% to 25% I'd guess."

The answer is slightly under 50% with state and local taxes factored in, and that DOES NOT include the bite from sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, etc. In that light, I'd assume that even the dimwitted Michael Moore would concede such people (average Americans) are over-taxed.

Given how hopelssly wrong he was on that issue, there's little hope he'll ever be right on ANY issue.

Ergo, "fat, dumb and stupid" is an accurate assessment of Michael Moore and that's a man you'd see making a "good Presient?"; May 19, 2007 at 12:24 PM