Adam vs Michael Moore, Russell Simmons, & Rich Liberal Hypocrites

I've seen a lot of rich liberals dropping by Occupy Wall Street to show their support for "the 99%," but it seems they're having a bit of a hard time actually JOINING the 99%. So if you're a rich liberal who resents your own success, all you have to do is go to http://adamvstheman.com/invest and give ME your money until you're happy, and you can rest assured, that money, will support continued coverage of the occupation movement. Or if you're really sick, you could just write a big check to the IRS. But for the sickest of the sick, people like Michael Moore and Russell Simmons, I want to MAKE IT EVEN EASIER!

According to the most recent Federal Reserve "Flow of Funds" report, total US household net worth is about $58.5T and according to the census.gov's US Population Clock as of 12:42 EST today, November 8th, 2011, that gets divided by 312,575,092 Americans. But wait! According to widely cited Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, 42% of that is controlled by the nation's top 1%! 42% of $58.5T is $24.57T divided by 1% of the population, or 3,125,751 Americans, and the average 1%er is worth $7,860,510.96. So the remaining 58% of the wealth is $33.93T and we divide that by the remaining 99% of the population, or specifically 309,449,341 Americans and we get an average net worth of us 99%ers of $109,646.38. I'm just pointing this out to set a target for rich liberals that want to take themselves all the way down to the AVERAGE of the 99%, you know, in solidarity. Now of course, that number is skewed by those at the top of the 99%, but so is that figure for the 1%. We know there are some folks out there with a lot more than the 1%er average of about $7.9M! The top tenth of a percenters! The true beneficiaries of corporatism!

Michael Moore, with a conservatively estimated net worth of $50m and Russell Simmons with a reported net worth of $340m are well above that average 1%er and fall squarely in that 0.1%. They are the VERY problem that the movement they claim to support is protesting, and yet while Fox News gets heckled out of OWS, these two are embraced, and embraced as representatives by the media. But I'm here to help them out. So Michael Moore, Russell Simmons, if either one of you actually decides to voluntarily join those of us in the 99%, I'll move into a tent at OWS and be the last person to leave when it's over. I will go on every march, attend every general assembly, and cover every appearance each of you make there for this YouTube channel.

All you have to do is donate enough of your net worth to charity (and I mean a real charity, actually delivering real aid or comfort of some kind) to put you squarely in the 99%, and I'll do it! You've both enjoyed seeing this become a global movement, so just be glad I'm only asking you to join 99% of AMERICANS, because if we used global numbers, you'd have to give away even more money. How much would it be worth it to you to have a former Republican Congressional candidate join the encampment while clearing your conscience at the same time? But I'll make it even easier for you! You don't have to come down to the average. Keep a million bucks. Keep two! That's probably closer to the cutoff to the top 1% anyway. WAIT! I'll make it EVEN EASIER! JUST COME DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE AVERAGE 1%ER! THAT'S RIGHT! You can keep $7,860,510.96 and I'll still do it!

But just for Russell Simmons and Michael Moore, I'll make it EVEN EASIER for you to take me up on this very serious offer. Take just 10% of your net worth, give me half, and give the occupy movement the other half, and I'll camp out for a whole year and cover EVERYTHING. Well, one year or until it's over, whichever comes first.

It's time to put up or shut up. You know what, I'll even extend the offer to anyone in the top tenth of a percent. If you want to donate just half of one tenth of your net worth to AVTM, don't worry, I'll camp out for a year and you don't have to give half of anything to the Occupation Movement. This offer most certainly applies to the ever hypocritical Warren Buffett as well, who should write a check to the IRS, or shut the hell up about raising taxes. If any one of you rich liberals decides to accept my challenge, I'll see you at Zuccotti Park, and then we can debate if this is really about the 99% versus the 1%, or those of you who want to use the force of government to impose their will on others, versus those of us who JUST WANT GOVERNMENT TO LEAVE US ALONE!

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• adam
• kokesh
• michael
• moore
• russell
• simmons
• warren
• buffett
• ron
• paul
• occupy
• wall
• street
• washington
• dc

[AdamKokesh]

@yayinterents I also gave them the charity option. I'd much rather they donate to charity than to government. Heck, I'd even prefer they give to the Occupy Movement over government.

[Mattboy2388]

@Demov12 Adams point was that they're hypocrites for bashing capitalism (among other things) when people like Moore and Buffett cant even properly define free markets and talk about how they should be taxed more despite the fact that he (Buffet) is in bed with the administration...

[XSilvenX]

@leeknivek The problem here is that you're arguing against a strawman because I in no way condone this current political paradigm, but that doesn't mean I think the free market is a solution. The free market is an assured way of getting government out of the way and restrict the amount of control they have in our lives. Granted. But it is NOT a solution and it will not magically spring about jobs, prosperity, and human happiness.

[XSilvenX]

@leeknivek You seem to be very out of touch with technology if you're not aware that most agricultural/manufacturing jobs are being reduced due to improved efficiency and automation. As this gets better there will be less jobs overall. It is important for humanity to get over these ideas in order to actually align with technological efficiency, otherwise we'll have a constant system of massive unemployment where industries desperately attempt to create faux jobs as replacements.

[leeknivek]

@XSilvenX If people are suffering, by all means, help them out if you feel you should. Now, considering that many politicians get elected on the basis that they'll help the poor, or the popularity of entitlement programs, it is obvious that many people want to help the poor and unfortunate.

So, do we NEED the government to help the poor and unfortunate? Surely we could do that ourselves, since so many of us want to.

[leeknivek]

@XSilvenX What automated factories are there that produce food independent of human effort? Why is anyone entitled to that food regardless?

How is capitalism "dog-eat-dog"?

[leeknivek]

@XSilvenX I have nothing against helping people out. The only problem I have is when government is used to coerce people into helping others.

The lack of jobs is also greatly because of government's involvement in the economy. If there are less regulations, less taxes, among other things, businesses would be more inclined to build factories here. However, with things like minimum wage and other entitlements, taxes, and other regulation, it is not profitable to manufacture goods in America.

[XSilvenX]

@leeknivek This is the scary part of why people like you are difficult to agree with, because if there are people suffering, due to their socioeconomic situation (not laziness, or unwillingness to work) you will come with your slogan. "there is no free lunch", although we produce more than enough. It is grossly inhumane and you would not be saying that if you happened to grow up in a place that actually took care of its people, you're far too brainwashed by dog-eat-dog capitalism.