Michael Moore Lies " I Am Not Part of the 1%"

reply to post by RainbeauBleu


But you didn't look at the point I had made in that he hasn't made his wealth at the expense of others.

Michael Moore had nothing to do with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which is what lead to the banking system collapse.

What about the mortgage fraud ?

This is how the "Owners" are making money to this very day and why people are moving their money into credit unions and smaller regional banks.

Does any one know what

Credit Default Swaps or
Derivatives Are ?

And how they are used to make money from nothing ?


This is how the 1% earn their money, and not by creating their own product through their own ideas and hard work.

It's completely different and why I cannot include someone like Michael Moore in that group categorically.

People love to pick on him because he's Fat and Obese which really shows how judgemental people really are unfortunately.

I don't judge people by the color of their skin or their physical appearance but by only the Content of their Character.

I applaud Michael Moore for his contributions to expose the real Owners of this Country who ARE the 1%.

And making Americans poorer every day.

Peace

Yeah, I have no love for Michael Moore either. But,s he's DEFINITELY not part of the "1%".

Unless you're making tens of millions of dollars ... you're not part of the 1%. I'm not sure what the cut-off is as far as income to be considered part of the 1%, but I'd guestimate it to be around 5 million and above (and that's a low-ball estimate).

There are plenty of self-made millionaires out there that are not taking advantage of other people's situations in order to profit. They're not lobbying to change laws to increase their bottom line. They're not paying off politicians in order to bid and be awarded federal contracts.

Though I am sickened by some people's wealth (mainly how they make their money - but also what they do with it), I recognize that they're not the REAL problem. The real problem are the people running multi-billion dollar companies. Raking in money hand-over-fist at the cost of the general public's welfare. Maybe these CEO's are only making 5 million per year (usually it's much more), but it's not their income that's the problem, it's the income they're producing for the corporations they're working for.

I don't believe Michael Moore is part of the 1%. Maybe he makes more than 5 million a year (I'd bet my yearly salary that he doesn't), but he's certainly not paying off politicians in order to make sure his film brings in more money than it did last year. And I'm sure he's paying the same taxes as the general public ... for the most part.

reply to post by neo96


this is silly. while he is worth millions, he is not the 1% the movement is really talking about. it's not like he's gaming the system. the occupy movement also arent talking about extremely successful doctors worth over a mil.

they're talking about the banksters, the hedge fund managers, the bastards that were selling mortgage securities to retirement funds knowing theyd be worth pennies on the dollar, the 'elite' who are socialized by the taxpayer.

really i'll never understand why conservatives on this site are against this movement. because they also support healthcare for all?

derp

See the misunderstanding comes from the belief (especially from right wing ideologists) that the OWS protests is about hating the rich which it isn't. Don't get me wrong this is certainly turning into a class war, and there are certainly tensions between the classes but what it comes down to is "fairness" (as in paying fair share) and stemming out the powerful and influential's hold on government which allows certain loop holes and benefits to be put in place for those considered well off.

Not everyone that makes that set amount of money agrees with the gutting of programs and the highering of prices through inflation, lack of jobs (because of outsourcing and other not spoken about factors), and elimination of safety nets so they would not be considered 1%. It comes down a difference in approach; do we believe that it is right for wage earners and middle class to foot the bill (which they have) for casino like practices by wall street (with bankers being the middle men)? Do we think its right that our taxes are used to bail out losses based on exploitation, greed and negligence while the middle and working class see their interests rates skyrocket, their wages and hours of work lessened and their funded programs decreased? What's considered greater hardship, an elderly person having to choose between food or medication, not being able to pay rent or mortgage (because of lessening of the dollar, energy increases and uptick in property taxes), and not being able to afford food staples such as milk? Or wall street execs getting 15,000 bonus instead of the 30,000 they are use to? Why must taxes be raised on the poor (inlfation is a tax on the poor) and services cut while those that are well off get greater tax cuts in the belief that the wealth will be shared through job creation (how's that working btw?).

There are plenty of people that make 10X the amount (or more) than the average citizen and know that what has happened in the last couple of years in no way can help the country or it's people and in some ways is a major threat to everyone's way of life. There are people that make that amount and from an ethical point of view understand that it is wrong to ask the most needy and vulnerable among us to foot the bill while the most able among us get breaks. There are people that make that amount and see the hypocrisy of allowing millions of foreclosures (a good % of them happen because of wall street and banking practices) to happen along with bankruptcies that ruin families while giving corporate welfare (through bailouts, subsidies and allowing loop holes in regulation) to big business, investment banks and wall street because they are "too big to fail".

One thing that I believe is important is to stress the difference between a person making 450,000 a year and a person making 20 million or more a year. They should not be lumped in, and IMO it blurs the line in what is considered rich. Investment bankers at the upper echelon (the heads that direct the body), top Wall street execs (especially hedge fund managers) and people like the Walmarts, Bloomberg etc.. should not be in the same group as your small business owner and grunts of middle management, and I believe that distinction needs to be made.

reply to post by nightbringr


Moore doesn't rage against ALL that is capitalist and neither do the "occupy" protestors. Again another misconception peddled by right wingers.

Moore rages against the irresponsible wreckless capitalism that makes people suffer at the expense of profit. The form of ultra capitalism that exists in the USA. The sort of ultra capitalism thats made US politicians puppets of large corporations.

The greed and excess that led to the worst economic crisis since the 1930s which has left everyone to pick up the tab.

Thats what Moore & the "occupy" protestors are raging against.

reply to post by neo96


Although I generally don't agree with your take on most things, I do have to agree that Moore was being evasive in that instance. I am a supporter of the OWS movement, and do like some of the things Moore stands for. However he is known to stretch the truth now and again to boost his arguments which in the end makes his points weaker.

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, as Moore certainly is, and further more a wealthy individual can still be supportive of OWS.

The issue in my opinions is not if you have money but how you make your money and whether you use it constructively or as a weapon.

Moore is a turd of the highest order.
To think that people want to persecute Mortgage Agents, who (Using OWS lingo) pressured high rate mortgages on the unsuspecting and profited from this is ok.
Yet, Moore has made millions, off the backs of hard working Americans, only to turn around and profit off of what he deems as evil, MONEY.

What a crock.

he hasn't made his wealth at the expense of others.

reply to post by nh_ee


That is a good point. Even the dropout that I knew made his money as a heartless slum lord and screwed everyone he could when it came to business deals. That's a huge character difference. I think you call them psychopaths. Real psychopaths are minus the compassion chip. You can't have compassion and step on others' backs on the way up....without any guilt or second thoughts.

reply to post by NightGypsy


AS always thats how it has to be.... because hes a democrat , thats why the thread got started ..PATHETIC that you allow yourself to still play the political system game , its as cheap of an arguement as the old well your doing this to me because of the color of my skin .....

Originally posted by macman
Moore has made millions, off the backs of hard working Americans...

Excuse me? What do you mean he has made millions off the backs of hard working Americans? You mean the hard working Americans who CHOOSE to pay to watch his movies?

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Will you vote for him because he flip-flopped on the issue? Is Romney a socialist now?

Orly. I always thought he was a socialist, from the beginning.
And:

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
If that's what you want to do, go ahead. You will only prove how I am willing to change my views when needed, if needed.

This imples that you have the right to change your commentary on a subject, but not Romney, if he joins in the OWS movement. A lot of the people who have started to join, only now? They believed the group was retarded, but changed their minds. A Politician can do the same without flip-flopping. (I know, hard to imagine.)

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Five pages already about Michael Moore LOL

I bet he's reading this tearing his hair out.

I think it's more likely thqat he's basking in the glow of the mad-ons.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
All I have seen on this thread is complete FoxNews backwash that in no way resembles fact.

I hope you've stuck around long enough to see that not all use Fox to come to the same conclusion.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Yes he does, as does the OP. Are you willing to hold the OP to the same amount of ridicule?

Ridicule isn't reserved for AGENDAS, it's reserved for outright LIES to MEET your AGENDA. So, tell m where the OP lied so I can hate on 'em too.

Originally posted by beezzer
As much as I've read, I'd have to say that the 1% is actually. . . . anyone that the OWS/progressive/Liberal/union/socialist/(pick your denomination) doesn't like.

This needs stating more often.

Originally posted by SyphonXNow you're getting somewhere. You mean to say, the "1%" involves the super-elite who are able to fund lobbyist attack groups and pocket-politicians? You think Michael Moore or any celebrity is in the 1% as I've just described? No. Not even the highest grossing celebrity in the world is part of the 1%, close but not quite.

If he owns stock in Exxon, he is too paying for lobbyists. If he is part of a Union, he's got lobbyist. There's far more than the 1% financed that have caused this mess to begin with. It's just easier for people to say 1%. For instance, we bailed out GM to pay $70 an hour to Union workers, and only $26 to new hires:

However, many in Congress accused the auto-makers of not operating competitively for years. The companies delayed making alternative energy vehicles, instead reaping profits from sales of SUV's and Hummers. When sales declined in 2006, they launched 0% financing plans to lure buyers. Union members were paid $70 per hour, on average, while new hires made $26 per hour.

Here
Union Bailout 1
Union Bailout 2

So, like usual, this isn't so clear-cut.

Originally posted by ANOK
Why is it people accept capitalism and make excuses for all its problems, but expect perfection and all the answers to even consider an alternative?

The thing is we're arguing semantics, to get this point dealt with. The capitalism, as we have it now, isn't purely capitalism. It's defaulted and defunct. Changes towards socialism had a play in that. Warmongering had a part to play in that.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
We need to understand that we need a little bit of both to even out the problems. Both systems are flawed, so we have to compromise!

We already ARE compromising. Government bails out anyone, and we're doing socialism. Big banks, welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, government paying interest on loans, etc. how is MORE of this going to help us? Please, point out what in Socialism that's not already tried in this country that we need more of? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to get rid of all of it, but dang, we've already compromised.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


The Rock's are only socialists when they need to throw the people a bone to keep them coming back. Beyond that they are the enemy. They won't do squat for anyone or anything if it can't benefit them either politically or monetarily!

Originally posted by AzureSky

He is not part of the 1%, he supports the 99%, which makes him the 99%. People, even wealthy people like Mr Moore, still have a heart, and know where it's at. He's been talking about wall streets crimes before ows even started, of course he'd be on board.

He's been talking about WS crimes because the corporations would let him interview them so that they could get the 99% to watch Mr. Moore's movies and make money off those 99% people. Even in the PMT show, Moore himself stated that even IF the people learned about WS crimes through the movies, the 99% crowd is so suppressed in their living state that they would do NOTHING about those crimes anyways. So in this sense, Moore is walking the fine line and creating PROPAGANDA in the media so people could watch his LATEST DOCUMENTARY movie. The corporation-Moore-working class money making circle repeats itself.

Also, how much has he donated to various causes?

He probably donated a lot of money, and not for warm and heart giving causes. Donating to charity gives any business TAX CREDITS to lower their taxable income. In fact, this is normal for any large business, or wealthy persons, to do. Nothing new here.

So, if you ask me, MM is a business man, and he enjoys stirring this chaotic movement in OWS. He has an agenda to probably make another movie. Just like in acting, right now he is APPEALING to the 99%, so make himself look like a good guy, a hero, a spokesperson for the unhappy. Mind you if you ever watch his body and eye movement to sensitive questions, he always looks as though he is innovatively crafting words around his answers...in other words, he is not direct. Being direct would make him lose his 99% followers, and therefore lose his million making ideas, and also lose his big corporate clients for future interviews. Maybe, like some other people like Alex Jones and the like, are being paid off by the billion dollar corporations to really keep their mouths shut or spill a few lies here and there.

Tiz better to tell the whole half-a-truth, and nothing but the half-truth, so help you God

Just my two cents on this.

reply to post by polarwarrior


so what your basically saying is that if you tell the truth question the official storys then have big interest in making more docu-films because they happen to make money your part of there gameplan

i have come to the conclusion that with " conspiracy theorys " ya can't do right for doing wrong

Is it just me, or does it really matter if he thinks he's in the 1% or the 99%? In all honesty, what the hell does he have to do with anything? I thought OWS was about corruption in the big corporations and the bailouts with the banks. Maybe I'm wrong since it's so important what side a celebrity is on. Can someone please explain to me why this even matters?

Originally posted by synnergy
I watched this interview, I didn't get the impression he was trying to be deceitful about his fortune.

When he was talking about the 1%, he described those that are very wealthy AND want to be more wealthy and ANY cost. And if you look at the past, the cost has been paid by many other Americans. For example: moving business overseas for higher profit. One of the subjects covered in the interview.

Besides, when I think of the 1%, I think of Billions and Trillions.
Michael Moore may be rich, but he is intent on giving back, so there is growth for all, that's the philosophy he is preaching, IMO.

So
"we" the 99%(?) are against thought crime"????
How "1984"of you all...
Just like all "amorphic" liberal ideas:

I feel you want "too much"!
Though It is legally accepted; you committed no crime.( wall st).

(Is no way to run a society).

IS That "Fair or just"????
Just more subjective(i.e."open to interpretation") words.

That one individual can take the superior position and judge your moral or materialistic "philosophy" as "bad"????
. Well the next person won't "feel" the same way you do. because we are individuals, not a borg hive mind.

This is why I am "anti-ows.."

reply to post by nightbringr

So, you propose that only those "without a heart" to be the 1%?

well - that's one way of putting it - but that is still not what this is all about

Funny how Moore rages against all that is capitalist, all the while profiting beyond most peoples wildest dreams, using the exact same capitalist mechanisms to line his pockets. The hypocracy is sickening and Moore should be ashamed of himself.

Moore doesn't rage against capitalism - that's too simplistic

he attempts to point out abuses in the system, injustices, inequality...he's a social commentator - and, yes - he's made a buck or two

you know why that's OK - and not hypocritical? Because - there is nothing wrong whatsoever about making money - not even making lots and lots - and even more lots of it

he has never said it was

anyone who knows me knows I'm not the guy's biggest fan - he's a little sloppy with his details, loosey goosey with his research - and he can be pretty mean spirited even when he doesn't need to be

he has a target audience and he really knows how to work them - no different from Rush on the right really

what interests me is how some people so want this to be a neo-communist uprising - because they know that just won't fly

well, it is not - and it's starting to worry more than a few people that they can't really paint it the way they want to

it's disorganized, it's just starting and it's one of the most fascinating things to happen in this country in quite some time - we can only wonder right now where it might all end up...

Power to the People

yes - I just said that out loud - and I meant it

:-)

Originally posted by macman
Moore is a turd of the highest order.
To think that people want to persecute Mortgage Agents, who (Using OWS lingo) pressured high rate mortgages on the unsuspecting and profited from this is ok.
Yet, Moore has made millions, off the backs of hard working Americans, only to turn around and profit off of what he deems as evil, MONEY. What a crock.

The crock is the inference that Moore has weaseled any of his gains from an unwilling or unwitting public. I doubt you have contributed...unless you have actually seen any of his films, then you did so willingly. Come to think of it...if one hasn't seen any of his films, are their comments relevant?
To my understanding, Moore has no problem with making money. He has problems with your country being full scale looted. Seems a pretty reasonable stance.

Again, I'm flabbergasted by this attitude of protecting the rich's ability to screw you over.

Originally posted by ANOK Socialism isn't free health care from the government. It is the workers ownership of the means of production in a direct democracy. Started by mill workers who realised they would be better off owning the mill themselves. Marx formed his own state version of socialism. Those who apposed the state became Anarchists (libertarian socialists).

Owning Greenbay Packers. What Sam Walton did to get Wal-Mart going. The brewers of Samuel Adams beer. If you want to call this socialism, most businesses start out this way under capitalism. Own a piece of what you work for. I wonder how many Blue Cross employees actually have Blue Cross health care? It would be unimaginable for them to have anything else.

The thing is that once a group of original owners has a business, they don't tend to hand over the reigns of that business to every other person out there. But, most people are given the option of owning stock in the company that they work for--especially full time employees. So alot of the aspects that "pure Marxism" wants are already in place right now.

Originally posted by bacci0909
Don't know if this has already been pointed out, but if it's "not true" that Moore is worth millions (as the transcript says he claimed to Piers), then how could he afford this?...

Michael Moore to donate 2.5 million dollars to Occupy Wall Street protesters Thursday

Well, damn, he put a percentage of his money where his mouth is. It doesn't change how he does things privately, that are different from his public image. I think this is the first time I've had even a flicker of respect for the man...let's see how quickly he stomps that out.

Originally posted by The Old AmericanPerfect example of the sliding scale. Mom-and-pop businesses that earn over a million dollars? They're not part of the 1% because they're just regular people. Moore's not part of it, because he's a big name that OWS can latch on to. Andrew Carnegie wouldn't have be1en part of the 1% because he gave his money away before dying.

If these people aren't part of this nebulous, ever-changing description of "The 1%", then who is? Perhaps that should be one thing OWS need to get together and hammer out. Because every time OWS whines about the 1%, they're talking about the above. It's getting pretty confusing the way they keep changing the rules.

This is the biggest problem for me joining. I don't earn this type of money, but I have friends who do, and I don't like seeing them getting tarred and feathered by people who create jargon that outsiders will not understand.

Originally posted by Ashes of the wake
How much fox news do you watch? Every time i see the comments from these people (you know who you are) it is just the same bs that fox news puts out.

um. Don't watch it at all. Got the wrong Republican.

Michael moore is evil

Nah, he's just power hungry, which makes him dangerous because the man won't curb his apetite. Now, if your definition of evil includes the money-grubbing power-hungry show-offs of the world, then yeah, he's evil.

Obama is a muslim communist

Nah, he's got a Muslim name, but he's definitely communist enough for the communist political party to nominate as their presidential candidate, lol. But our POTUS did bow to Muslim leaders, but does not give the same respect to other faiths, which means he's got issues.

Everyone without a job is a deadbeat

Nah, but I tell people to start applying in shipyards down here, and these people don't want to move to go where the jobs are, and thereby refuse what jobs there are, so they're pretty close to the label. More so than I want them to be.

The rich need to be richer

The Federal government doesn't need to be richer than me. When the government is more in debt than the wealth of the individuals, it's time to quit caring what the individuals have and fix the government.

The poor should get less

The poor should buy things within their means. Yes they need the opportunity to make more than they do, but there's a lot of stuff I've seen in homes that needed financial help that SHOULD NOT BE THERE.

It is so sad that you have to continue to stick to this ideology even after the events of the past 15 years. The republicans are no different from the democrats. The argument is worn out and is worthless.

It's just as much a shame as people who misrepresent beliefs, too.

Moore is just like anyone else making documentaries and spreading news. Some of it is bs and some of it is truth. You have to take any information you see with a grain of salt and do the research yourself to find it. This is obviously not what you do when you watch fox news, it must be all truth.

Moore is an entertainment.

Michael moore kicks ass, but you americans cant handle the truth...

a truth seeker and an honest journalist. Unlike many, he has the courage to just be honest.
We need more like him

nuff said