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.
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?
moore has no credibility because he does not understand the economy. i would not listen to ann coulter on the economy either.
The amusing thing is that he's part of the class he rails against. People like jtur88 buy his "average joe" BS. Moore knows that ultimately, he's not going to have any significant impact, but he makes a hell of a lot of money from people that buy into his nonsense.
A lot of people don't understand that it's in Moore's financial best interest to pander to his audience. He's making a lot of money off antagonizing class warfare. He's intellectually dishonest and lacking integrity - and laughing all the way to the bank.
He's intellectually dishonest and lacking integrity - and laughing all the way to the bank.
But what about his plan?! That is what this thread was about. Are those lies in his introduction? Do American CEO's not make 400x the salary of the average employee? Do the richest 400 Americans outweath the bottom 150 Million? Has the wealth of those 400 people not increased by 700 Billion in 8 years? If these are in fact lies I expect them to be denounced as such in short order. If they are true, as I suspect they are, then there may be something of practical value in a plan that calls for the wealthiest Americans to shoulder the greater part, if not the whole part, of a plan to end the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
When all you can do is attack the messenger, his appearance, his weight, his wealth... does anyone attack Bill Garte's wealth? Warren Buffet's? Clinton's? Palin's? How many Baptist ministers are worth millions and preach every Sunday in front of congregations of which half have a negative net worth? Moore is onto something and those that have a vested interest in the general public remaining ignorant about just how much is being kept from them and taken from them are scared, and rightly so, of someone who can play the facts out in plain language so the Proletariat can understand them. Rock on brother Moore, rile 'em up some more.
But what about his plan?! That is what this thread was about. Are those lies in his introduction?
Not necessarily lies, but clear misrepresentations. For instance...
Quote:
Do the richest 400 Americans outweath the bottom 150 Million?
Moore's words:
Quote:
The richest 400 Americans -- that's right, just four hundred people -- own MORE than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. 400 rich Americans have got more stashed away than half the entire country!
What he's not telling you is that the 150M people he's talking about are mostly children. Most kids I know don't have a source of income, other than maybe a token allowance.
This is a typical example of Moore's deceitfulness, and the reason you shouldn't give anything he says any credence whatsoever. If he's making valid points, other people (that can be trusted a bit more than Moore) will make the same points.
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.
It's a good thing I didn't take your word for it. I did a little checking and discovered there actually has been a housing glut since 2005. Recently inventory has risen to over 18 Million homes that are vacant! That has done very little to drive down prices. Well it finally driving them down but is it getting them sold?! No, people will rent their houses first before they will sell them for market value and if they can't stomach the thought of someone else living in 'their' house they simply let it sit empty. The laws of supply and demand have been obsolete for quite awhile now. Everyday my supermarket throws more produce in the dumpster than would feed every homeless person in the neighborhood. Even when the stuff is just beginning to go off they won't relent and drop the price. They don't have to, they made their money on the first 1/4 case. The rest would have been a nice profit but, oh well. Next time. I can tell you have a lot of angst about this issue. I wish I could give you some of my peace. Despite my curmudgeonly bluster I am, at heart, relatively good natured and easygoing. I don't like greed and envy and good thing, they aren't good for you. No question, things are skewed but aim your gun at the right target(s).
Good morning! I posted this on another thread however it seems to make sense to highlight it again on this one.... how about this:
We all write to our respective governors (as they can issue executive orders) and the Banking and Insurance Commission of each state and include our respective senators; we suggest that the Governor(s) mandate that all banks, for 3 or 4 months, are not permitted to foreclosure on any property (MA Governor did this some time ago); requires every bank to renegotiate a person's mortgage whether it be 1/2 or 1/3 regardless of their credit because their credit is clearly already affected because they cannot make their payments; this adjustment is for a minimum of say 3-5 years. Any person who can make additional payments is not penalized with a "pre-payment" (VT does not have prepayment penalties); this way, people do not lose their homes, they do not have to worry about a mortgage payment in lieu of their heat, or their food etc., it will keep money in banks thus they can make loans, give mortgages; people can purchase other necessities and other businesses will not have to close because a consumer is able to purchase something; it seems to make a little sense...perhaps it is not perfect however, it is better for a lender to get something rather than nothing; it helps the consumer feel less of a failure.
I got an email from a former high school alumni telling me/us that one of his best friends and mentor killed himself two days ago because he lost everything. I suspect there will be others who will do the same and that to me is just outrageous, tragic, and egregious that people feel that there is absolutely no light at the end of the tunnel...
I also believe that it is vital to have our representatives understand the reality of what many people are going through...they asked for our help when it was election time and now, it is their turn to give us their help.
If we were to seriously consider a way to help people having trouble with mortgages, how would we draw lines?
--how do we prove people aren't making poor financial and budgeting decisions that are causing their inability to pay their mortgages?
--how do we prove people aren't just holding back or misrepresenting their ability to pay? if I'm an unscrupulous homeowner who hears of my neighbors getting assistance, wouldn't I do whatever I could to get in that line too?
--do you target certain communities based on ethnic makeup, or median home value, or economic situation, or do you go to ALL towns, or do you randomly distribute assistance? are you going to be more favorable to those who have kids, and is it fair to discriminate against single people or couples with no kids?
--are we only looking at adjustable-rate mortgages, or also fixed rate mortgages?
--are we going to do anything for homeowners not having any problems? or for those who put off buying a house to save for a larger down payment so as not to go into an unsustainable mortgage? or those who have ALREADY been foreclosed on? or are just limiting this to those we think are having trouble with mortgages they have right now?
--how bad does it have to be for you to receive assistance? One missed payment? three? no missed payments but not able to buy food? living comfortably and paying the mortgage but not being able to eat out as often as desired or go on out of state vacations?
--how long should the assistance last? what about unemployed homeowners? do we keep paying until they find a job or for a certain amount of time or do we give them a big lump sum?
--how much should the assistance be and what form should it take? who decides what's fair and what's adequate?
--how do we make sure people have actually really tried to make ends meet?
--would we have any help for brand new homeowners who might be in ARMs or might be too highly leveraged according to some standard? or brand new homeowners who have children?
--how do we ensure homeowners don't take advantage of the assistance and use it on frivolous expenditures?
--is the precedence set by this action good for the future of home ownership in this country? does it teach people and lenders responsibility and reasonableness? does it avoid class warfare?
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.
Yes.. and most likely they cut out something "extra" to do it.. and they do not have disposable income any longer.. which was the sacrafice they made
- They put little or no money as a down payment. Some didn't, some did. If they put no money down.. then fine.. but the fact they put no money downis not what is wrong with their mortgage at this point.. cause guess what? NOW even if you DID you would still be under water! And , btw, not everyone didn't put a down payment in their home.
- 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.
Yeah.. they took out the ARMS.. now , in retrospect the dumbest thing they EVER did!! Yes.. SOME not all, had record low interests.. like 3% when a fixed rate was 5% . Now.. some of those people WERE at the edge with the 3%. The problem, however, is that someone at 3 might have jumped to 6 that put htem over the affordability. So.. why not give them say a 5%, if they can swing it. If they can't swing a 5%, then they will still loose their home. But.. you may be surprised at how many can afford 5%. And NOT all ARMS were extremely low teasers.. some started above 6%-7% which is still better than the best rates today which I believe are inthe low 6's/ high 5's. Lock them in a 1/2 a point higher and they may be able to swing it.. but the jump from 7-9 is what may have knocked it out of the affordability range.
- 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.
Having no savings after purchasing a home is not neccesarily a crime. It means that they will have to cut back on even more to build up that savings.. if they so choose to. Even those NOT in the ARM mess have low savings.. just look at the savings rate in the U.S for that and you'll see that homeowners that purchased in the last 4 years arent the only ones with no savings.
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."
How many "ordinary" peope even WATCH those "economists". What they say might as well be spoken in pig latin for crying out loud. The only people who watch that stuff are people who trade on Wall Street etc.. and THEY, who understood what was being said, didn't even listen.
I totally get why you say "why should they get help".. but look at it this way. Congress just signed into law to turn over $700 Billion to Wall Street.. and even WITH that they keep saying it may and probably will not work unless and until the home values STOP falling AND the market recovers. The only way to do that is to stop flooding the market with foreclosures.
You can't know if someone's hiding something.. What you can have them do is fill out financial information on themselves.. monthly expenses, monthly incomes (if htey are not their own business then they have paystubs). If they are their own business a profit and loss statement, bank statements etc (to look for large withdrawls, etc) and then figure it out from there. It's not easy to hide something when you have to show documentation.. but they will be able tosee what someone can afford and if the house can be saved.
Even though foreclosures are only 3%.. that 3% was enough to cause a HUGE tailspin in the economy.. and there may be more to come.
Vis a vis the Iraq War, Moore's affections are clearly offered to America's adversaries: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation [i.e., against American, British and other coalition forces] are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy," said Moore. "They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i....asp?indid=899
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- I personally wouldn't listen to a word this guy has to say, right or wrong, out of respect for my country.
Very funny, and highly recommended. Zucker brilliantly nailed every left-wing propaganda talking point.
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.
and there may be more to come.
