Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, in the case of Michael Moore, anything the man says can and should be dismissed out of hand. It has nothing to do with his politics - it's because of his propensity to lying. If his idea(s) are good, other people - with more credibility - will also propose them and they may then be considered.
Moore doesn't lie or twist the facts in his favor any more than most other politicians these days. Why should they be held to a different standard?
I think Moore has lost all credibility among non-Democrats. Do you feel Ann Coulter's comments should also be dismissed automatically when she speaks (as most would likely agree that she's the "Michael Moore" on the Republican side)? Or is she more "honest" in her statements?
So why award one group over another? Why rejoice when one person falls upon hard times for his/her risk while someone else took risks with other peoples' money and not their own? And why place more blame on the home owner over the banks they trusted to give them the loan? How many of those home owners took on a loan that they couldn't afford compared to the ones who lost a job or found themselves in a situation that they had little control over as a result of the economy turning to $#%&? How can they all be grouped together? And how can you suggest that it's just to watch people who were responsible take the fall for everyone else?
You cheer the downturn at the expense of others. That's a unique way to look at it I suppose. I guess I can't bring myself to be happy about the investment losses that I, my friends and family, and even those I don't know (who didn't necessarily act irresponsibly) will have to endure because of all this.
I don't like the idea of a bail out. I think it reinforces bad business practices by the most powerful corporations (and decision-makers) in our society. The only people being punished for all of this are the people with less money in their portfolio, even though they aren't the only ones to blame. There will be no consequences or hardships for those who made decisions that negatively affected millions. It's unfortunate that justice will not be served across the board relative to the role played. But I also fear what will happen if nothing is done.
I already can't stand the idea of any bailout, but I feel even more strongly that we need to let housing prices fall back to where they should be. I'm not playing favorites - I don't like either one. I'm all for justice to be served to all the bank executives and managers who committed fraud by lying to people about finances, and they should be punished. However, a home should NEVER be seen as the single solid investment for the future. The risk in the housing market is like the stock market - you *can* lose a LOT of money, and it happened. Unfortunate for them, but we shouldn't be bailing anyone out of any investment.
Also, how many of those who you say lost a job and no longer could keep their home had agreed to monthly mortgage payments that were too high to cover in the event of job loss? If you have to take two jobs to make ends meet, so be it. People lose jobs every year, even in a good economy, and it's your own personal choices that play a large part in your ability to cover emergency situations. If someone has an expensive mortgage, loses a job, and doesn't have the savings or part-time jobs to cover these rough times, it's their own fault for buying a house they can't afford in the long term! If they had put more money down, or chose a less expensive home in the first place, they'd still be living there.
I'm not trying to be mean to those who overpaid for houses or had so little equity in their home that they had to walk away when values fell. I'm looking out for the future generations of home buyers - those young professionals, college students, high school and middle school kids. How are they supposed to buy a home before they're 40 if median home prices stay 5-7x median salaries? I'm not cheering people's loss of investment - I'm cheering the housing market returning to exactly where it should be. People should be saving money and have a diverse enough savings to cover a downturn in any particular industry. To put all your investment into your home is ridiculous.
I've seen my 401k and stocks slide over this financial meltdown, and although I don't own a house, why aren't I being given a $100k check to cover the loss of my investment like those who have lost out on their home "investment?" I don't think the government should be giving ANY money out to anyone, and if we have to lose half the NYSE value to keep from bailing anyone out, I'd prefer that over giving money away to homeowners and banks that failed.
I think Moore has lost all credibility among non-Democrats. Do you feel Ann Coulter's comments should also be dismissed automatically when she speaks (as most would likely agree that she's the "Michael Moore" on the Republican side)? Or is she more "honest" in her statements?
Michael Moore lost his credibility when his weight became immeasurable...
Wow, this topic has really hit a nerve. I wonder why. ucfjtm's post shows just how much emotion is tied up in making sure that "if I don't get help then no one should". It's worse than that. We are all so certain that the victims of the sub-prime housing scandal deserved it that we are unwilling to countenance a plan that will help them. Tsk tsk. We would rather see the banks get 700 Billion than have 1.6 million homeowners 77% of whom are people of color get a dime. That's really why this thread has gone to 5 pages in 24 hours. Home price appreciation is nothing new. My parents house in 1958 was $30K, in 1982 it was sold for $180K in one of the worst parts of Brooklyn. My mothers youngest sister bought her house in 1977 in an up and coming part of Queens for 77K it's highest value before the downturn was 600K. Where could a young couple starting out come up with 600K? House prices need to come down in spite of a bailout to homeowners, not because they are allowed to be kicked out in the street. I don't see how that will bring prices down. It will just give some the inner satisfaction that life is working as it should. In a period of some of the worst unemployment in history some of you simply amaze me with the ease that you tell people to simply work their way out of their troubles. Or learn their way out of difficulty. A so-so college is 20K a year. That's really doable for someone in an unemployed situation. If Moore scares you or angers you it is because you believe in the status quo and that would be because it is working for you. Fine, just don't begrudge us our Prophet. We'll come for your heads if you do! Grrrrr!
I already can't stand the idea of any bailout, but I feel even more strongly that we need to let housing prices fall back to where they should be. I'm not playing favorites - I don't like either one. I'm all for justice to be served to all the bank executives and managers who committed fraud by lying to people about finances, and they should be punished. However, a home should NEVER be seen as the single solid investment for the future. The risk in the housing market is like the stock market - you *can* lose a LOT of money, and it happened. Unfortunate for them, but we shouldn't be bailing anyone out of any investment.
Also, how many of those who you say lost a job and no longer could keep their home had agreed to monthly mortgage payments that were too high to cover in the event of job loss? If you have to take two jobs to make ends meet, so be it. People lose jobs every year, even in a good economy, and it's your own personal choices that play a large part in your ability to cover emergency situations. If someone has an expensive mortgage, loses a job, and doesn't have the savings or part-time jobs to cover these rough times, it's their own fault for buying a house they can't afford in the long term! If they had put more money down, or chose a less expensive home in the first place, they'd still be living there.
I'm not trying to be mean to those who overpaid for houses or had so little equity in their home that they had to walk away when values fell. I'm looking out for the future generations of home buyers - those young professionals, college students, high school and middle school kids. How are they supposed to buy a home before they're 40 if median home prices stay 5-7x median salaries? I'm not cheering people's loss of investment - I'm cheering the housing market returning to exactly where it should be. People should be saving money and have a diverse enough savings to cover a downturn in any particular industry. To put all your investment into your home is ridiculous.
I've seen my 401k and stocks slide over this financial meltdown, and although I don't own a house, why aren't I being given a $100k check to cover the loss of my investment like those who have lost out on their home "investment?" I don't think the government should be giving ANY money out to anyone, and if we have to lose half the NYSE value to keep from bailing anyone out, I'd prefer that over giving money away to homeowners and banks that failed.
To think that those who didn't plan for this situation were acting irresponsibly is ridiculous in my opinion. They took a risk, sure, but I doubt many knew how big the risk actually was with all that was going on behind the scenes. And I doubt the average person would have seriously believed we would be experiencing this type of situation (the past couple of weeks/months) 2 or 3 years ago and would have been prepared for it. The analysts didn't do much to slow the behavior - it didn't seem like anyone really knew this was coming for sure.
It's one thing to plan for hard times, it's quite another to be prepared for a crisis of this magnitude.
Moore doesn't lie or twist the facts in his favor any more than most other politicians these days. Why should they be held to a different standard?
Newsflash - Moore isn't a politician.
Quote:
I think Moore has lost all credibility among non-Democrats. Do you feel Ann Coulter's comments should also be dismissed automatically when she speaks (as most would likely agree that she's the "Michael Moore" on the Republican side)?
Yes.
There is a distinct difference between Moore and Coulter, however. Coulter makes no bones about who she is or what she does. Moore, on the other hand, tries to pass himself off as an "average Joe" - a man of the people. He tries to say that his movies are just trying to change things that he sees as being wrong with the system. While that may be true, I don't see him donating his millions to charity to help those less fortunate souls his films are supposed to be about.
You can compare Moore with Coulter when it comes to how far to their respective sides they are on the issues, but at least Coulter is able to maintain some integrity. Moore, for all his millions, is completely bankrupt in that area.
Wow, this topic has really hit a nerve. I wonder why. ucfjtm's post shows just how much emotion is tied up in making sure that "if I don't get help then no one should".
Don't take my statement out of context. I'm an independent who firmly believes in fiscal responsibility in government as well as personal life. I don't want any government handouts, and people who make bad investment decisions shouldn't get them either. I was against "stimulus checks," just as much as I am against any bailouts - homeowner or banks. Of course I deposited my "stimulus check / income redistribution," but I wasn't happy about the entire concept.
If you don't understand the simple concept of why foreclosures will help bring home prices back to realistic ~1999-plus-3% levels, you're lost in Moore's world. The foreclosures will lead to more inventory, helping drive down prices across the market. I don't wish ill will on others. If people want to keep their homes, I want them to cut expenses or take on another job to makes ends meet. That's the facts of how we've dealt with paying mortgages for decades, and it shouldn't change now.
Also, it's BS to state that a "so-so" university costs $20k per year. The two state schools I attended, which provide fine education in my field (far better than a "so-so" school), have semester tuition rates around $1200-1700 a semester. Tuition and books was around $6,000-7,000 a year to be a full-time, year-round student in Florida. I worked my way through with part-time jobs paying close to minimum wage, so I know it can be done.
To think that those who didn't plan for this situation were acting irresponsibly is ridiculous in my opinion. They took a risk, sure, but I doubt many knew how big the risk actually was with all that was going on behind the scenes. And I doubt the average person would have seriously believed we would be experiencing this type of situation (the past couple of weeks/months) 2 or 3 years ago and would have been prepared for it. The analysts didn't do much to slow the behavior - it didn't seem like anyone really knew this was coming for sure.
It's one thing to plan for hard times, it's quite another to be prepared for a crisis of this magnitude.
A significant number of people in this foreclosure mess broke quite a few "standards" for how one should buy a house:
- They borrowed far more than 2.5x-3x their salary.
- They put little or no money as a down payment.
- They took ARMs at a record low interest rate, guraranteeing that their mortgages will increase when they reset at a basically-guaranteed higher rate in a few years.
- They accepted a mortgage where they were spending more than 25% of their income on housing.
- They have almost no savings after purchasing a house to help carry them through rough times.
No one predicted a crisis of this magnitude, but foreclosure rates are only what.. 3%? I'd bet many in that 3% broke more than one or two of the above "standards." The combination of a few of the above do add up to some painful results.
Also, many economists were warning about this housing bubble and mortgage lending issues back in 2002-2003, before it really took off in 2004-2005, so people can't entirely say "no one predicted this."
Well I read his 'plan', and he lost me at "bailout the homeowners" part.
Hell no. No one should bail anyone out. Those who screwed up, whether it be the idiots who borrowed more than they could afford, or the banks who lent more than they should have, deserve to fall flat on their back. WTH is happening to personal responsibility in this country?
I don't own a home yet, and still rent. Why? Because I've been working towards saving a sizable down payment for a home for years. You know, being responsible.
But to bailout homeowners insults those of who do things right. In that case, I should have just bought that big house with no money down, because I'd be bailed out, i.e. rewarded for being irresponsible! And it would punish those of us who didn't stupidly fall for these loan schemes by diverting our money to those who did.
Far right wing nuts believe in their holy Republican leaders to the point that they will ignore the cost of a 5 trillion dollar war, factor out the 4 dollar gas, and happily hand over their money to blatant Wall St criminals rather than admit that Bill O'Reilly's words are not gospel and the nations woes are not fully and entirely the fault of welfare mothers.
Liberals got to come to terms with the fact the Dems are doing us now just like they also supported BushCo's war.
If everybody would wake up from the faux - partisan distraction, you would see Mike is right. It's not libs vs Cons, it's not R vs L. It's a criminal syndicate in control of our gov't all of whom are our enemy - Gov't & Big money vs the people.
I think anyone who can't see that yet is either propagandized into oblivion or one of them.
A "$5 trillion war?" What did you dream up that figure?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
