http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...heirs_thats_a_national_resource_its_ours.html Quote from Michael Moore: "They're sitting on the money, they're using it for their own -- they're putting it someplace else with no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We've allowed them to take that. That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours. We all have this -- we all benefit from this or we all suffer as a result of not having it," Michael Moore told Laura Flanders of GRITtv. "I think we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates. They need to -- we need to see these jobs as something we some, that we collectively own as Americans and you can't just steal our jobs and take them someplace else," Moore concluded.
That's a very clumsy way of putting it on his part, but I think he might be trying to get at the downside of globalism and free trade.
Isnt it funny, how liberals cry about how the rich have so much money and they should spread it around so they wont be so poor, but when you send their $60,000 per year I.T. job to india so a guy that was making $2 per day can now make $10 per day, they flip out and say "Why the fuck you giving my money to HIM?!?"
Not sure who, if anyone, is "crying" about it, but my own objection is to the rich becoming government and legislating, in effect, who can and who cannot be rich. Whether it's barriers to admission, tariffs, taxation, credit, or another half dozen ways they've concocted to separate the working man from his money, voluntary or not, they continue to win. Consider the difference between entrepreneurial capitalism and crony capitalism. As for the outsourcing part, there are a a lot of conservatives who are "flipping out" about that, too.
Very poorly stated by Mr. Moore, but I absolutely believe that corporate America has a moral and patriotic obligation to invest in America first, and take care of those that made them successful in the first place. Otherwise take off the f'n flag lapel pin and stick it up your ass.
What is it with all these Michael Moore apologists? Sheesh. He's a big boy (literally) and he said what he meant say. I know it's embarrassing but it is what it is.
I wasn't apologizing so much as I was trying to extract what (I think) he meant from that grammatical mess. Without interpretation it makes no sense, thus one could not make a claim about "sums up liberals".