Michael Moore Refuses To Answer Net Worth Questions @ Occupy PDX

[ABM]

Hmmm....... Make way for the 1%!

"I love Portland!" ~Michael Moore

[video=youtube;VWa_RTTLIFQ]

 

[44Thrilla]

wow, so he's a bad guy because he has money?

 

[PapaG]

wow, so he's a bad guy because he has money?

He's in the 1% and his foundation invests in Wall Street stocks. I thought that meant he was automatically a bad guy?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

wow, so he's a bad guy because he has money?

No, not bad. Hypocritical, maybe.

 

[MARIS61]

The "questions" were nothing more than childish heckling by a rightwing plant, and Moore had already answered them in full by personally supporting the 99%.

Try to pay attention.

 

[ABM]

The "questions" were nothing more than childish heckling by a rightwing plant, and Moore had already answered them in full by personally supporting the 99%.

Try to pay attention.

If I were Moore, I would have responded with something such as, "I would be glad to contribute $1mil, along with my other mega-rich counterparts."

 

[speeds]

So if someone survives cancer they are a hypocrite for supporting cancer sufferers?

Edit: Never mind, I withdraw this comparison and regret posting in this thread.

 

[Ed O]

How can someone who so fully supports the 99% remain in the 1%? There are tons of opportunities to give away all of the income you make after your first $340k.

And why is he denying that he's in the 1%? Either he actually made less than $340k (which is tough to believe, if he's actually worth $50m as has been reported... that's a 0.68% return on net worth) or he believes that Occupiers discount all the 1% or he is self-loathing. Or some combination thereof.

I don't begrudge him making money (even if I begrudge him making stupid movies that I can't stomach) ... but he seems like a hypocritical panderer that would rather make money on the alleged misdeeds and tragedies of others than to come clean on what he is.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

How can someone who so fully supports the 99% remain in the 1%? There are tons of opportunities to give away all of the income you make after your first $340k.

And why is he denying that he's in the 1%?

He's not.

Either he actually made less than $340k (which is tough to believe, if he's actually worth $50m as has been reported... that's a 0.68% return on net worth) or he believes that Occupiers discount all the 1% or he is self-loathing. Or some combination thereof.

I don't begrudge him making money (even if I begrudge him making stupid movies that I can't stomach) ... but he seems like a hypocritical panderer that would rather make money on the alleged misdeeds and tragedies of others than to come clean on what he is.

Ed O.

Or maybe the notion that he's pretending not to be part of the 1% isn't accurate.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

The 1% are the rich selfish conservatives, and don't include the rich liberals who want to be fairly taxed, like Moore or Buffet. The 1% are the ones causing, not the ones trying to solve, the problem.

 

[STOMP]

Hmmm....... Make way for the 1%!

"I love Portland!" ~Michael Moore

in other ABM news, in yet another response to Obama's jobs speech Wall Street tanked again today

STOMP

 

[BrianFromWA]

The 1% are the rich selfish conservatives, and don't include the rich liberals who want to be fairly taxed, like Moore or Buffet. The 1% are the ones causing, not the ones trying to solve, the problem.

I can't remember, is it more, or less than $1,000,000,000 that Buffet's company hasn't paid in back taxes? Or is "wanting to be fairly taxed" and "actually paying what you're supposed to be paying" two different things in Rich Liberal Land?

 

[BrianFromWA]

He's not.

First, some comments about Moore. Well done for learning something in Catholic school. I thought his "one for him, one for me" plan was pretty good. However, let's look at that. He didn't give that $1M "for him" to the government to give away as they saw fit. He founded a private charity that donated philanthropically to people and organizations that he wanted to. Sounds a lot like faith-based and other private charities. Not seeing gov't involved, there.

Secondly, let's look at how he disposed of "his" $1M.

The remaining million went like this: I paid off all my debts, paid off the debts of some friends and family members, bought my parents a new refrigerator, set up college funds for our nieces and nephews, helped rebuild a black church that had been burned down in Flint, gave out a thousand turkeys at Thanksgiving, bought filmmaking equipment to send to the Vietnamese (my own personal reparations for a country we had ravaged), annually bought 10,000 toys to give to Toys for Tots at Christmas, got myself a new American-made Honda, and took out a mortgage on an apartment above a Baby Gap in New York City.

Paid off his debts, helped his famiy, helped his parents, helped his family...helped his neighbors rebuild their church in Flint...helped the poor in his community at Thanksgiving, gave to a pet project of his, bought a car, took out a home loan. I'm not seeing a lot of government involvement in those things, either (unless you count that the Marine Corps owns and operates Toys for Tots, but whatever). All great things. All things I will applaud him for publicly. Nothing to do with why I should give more to the government. Nothing to do with why the government shouldn't bounce 1.6T in checks every year. In fact, it looks a lot like what I keep posting about the responsibility of each individual to take care of his family, friends and neighbors, and why local organizations should deal with the bulk of our charitable giving, not the faceless and unaccountable gov't giving checks to faceless and unaccountable people.

And I'm still confused on the 1% thing. Above I'm told it's about people making over $380k (not just in salary, but in investments). Other times I'm told it's based on wealth. Regardless of how he spent his money, this guy made $3M

Though this was a bit ironic. I don't begrudge him for it, but it's funny:

What remained went into a simple, low-interest savings account.

I believe the concept of making money off your money had created a greedy, lazy class who didn't produce any product, just misery and fear among the populace.

And by the way, this:

but the idea was that the human family was supposed to divide up the earth's riches in a fair manner so that all of God's children would have a life with less suffering.

...isn't biblical. In fact, it's heretical and antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

He also who had received the one talent came and said, "Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter. I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have what is yours."

But his lord answered him, "You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn't sow, and gather where I didn't scatter. You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest. Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away. Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

— Matthew 25:24–30, World English Bible

It's a parable on the need for salvation, not necessarily a commentary on banking principles, but it's definitely NOT saying that "earth's riches should be divided up in a fair manner." That's from the Book of Michael.

Even his quote from Catholic school: "last shall be first and first last"? It's also from a parable in Matthew. But I don't think it means what Michael thinks it means. I leave it to the reader.

1 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Doesn't seem like anything about government, fairness, or dividing evenly the riches. It talks about how a 1% landowner can do whatever he wants with his money, and was generous in the way he wanted to be generous. He didn't give a bunch of cash to the gov't to dole out to the guys sitting outside doing nothing. He gave his money to people who wanted to work.

 

[Denny Crane]

He's not.



Or maybe the notion that he's pretending not to be part of the 1% isn't accurate.

barfo

He is.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/directors/michael-moore-net-worth/

Michael Moore is a controversial documentary filmmaker with a net worth of $50 million. Moore’s biggest three movies; Bowling For Columbine, Fahrenheit 911 and Capitalism A Love Story have earned over $300 million at the box office.

Fahrenheit 911 raked in $230 million in theaters and another $3 million in DVD sales. After the theaters take their traditional 50% cut, that leaves roughly $130 million. Take away marketing, production and distribution expenses and Moore is conservatively left with $80 million. Moore was able to secure a deal from Miramax which guaranteed him 27% of his film’s net revenues, or roughly $21.6 million. Michael also was entitled to 50% of the profits of Sicko which are estimated to be $17 million.

Moore is the author of several best selling books and received a $1 million advance for “Dude Where’s My Country” plus a generous percentage of the book sales.

 

[barfo]

He is.

No, silly, I meant he's not pretending not to be part of the 1%. You obviously didn't click on the link I provided. It's a blog written by Moore entitled "Life among the 1%". Meaning his life.

barfo

 

[ABM]

The 1% are the rich selfish conservatives, and don't include the rich liberals who want to be fairly taxed, like Moore or Buffet. The 1% are the ones causing, not the ones trying to solve, the problem.

Conversely, the 1% are hugely responsible for even having such a discussion as to how the wealth should be taxed.

OK, sure, let's just penalize the bastards. Nobody, NOBODY deserves to make that much money. It's a crime, I tell ya. A flat-out travesty.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Also, is he advocating this:

I told the guy who did my 1040 not to declare any deductions other than the mortgage and to pay the full federal, state and city tax rate. I proudly contributed nearly 1 million dollars for the privilege of being a citizen of this great country.

...for all of the 76,000,000 who utilize deductions to not only not pay the full federal, state and city rate, for the privilege of being a citizen...but who don't pay a dime at all?

As we've shown, the "Buffett Plan" of "making the rich pay more" would gain enough revenue to pay 1/1000th of the budget overrun this year, or less than half of what we'd make if we just instituted a "Privilege of Being a Citizen" $20 tax to everyone who files a tax return. I'll put it another way. The Buffett Plan would earn enough to pay about 1/130th of the interest payment on our debt every year. Kanye can scream about raising taxes (btw...is he saying that Kanye thinks the government has a better right to spend Kanye's money on good causes than he does? Because Moore obviously doesn't) but it doesn't do anything to reduce the defecit, stop the figurative check-bouncing, improve our credit rating, etc.

If there's one thing that I agree with the OWS people about (and it's tough, b/c they're all over the place), it's that Congress seems to be listening to special interests (of whatever stripe they come in) rather than legislating what is best for the country. But THEY VOTED FOR THESE PEOPLE!! What do they expect?

Here's an example. 2001, Congress votes to start the Global War on Terror 518-1. 2003, Congress votes to go to war with Iraq: 373-156. Over the next decade, the "Overseas Contingency Operations" line of the budget (basically, the cost of being in two wars) cost roughly 1.4T (a little under the size of this year's deficit). Not once did I see a vote saying "in order to pay for this, we have to tax another $140B a year, which comes out to ~$400 per citizen per year, or $800 per tax return filed per year." Of course people would've been up in arms (no pun intended) about this. But that's the cost of doing business. If the people don't like that, vote out of office the people that voted for the war.
It's like running up a large credit card bill to buy Christmas presents for your family that you hadn't budgeted for, but not getting a temporary job around the holidays in order to pay for it. Irresponsible. Those people (D's and R's and I's) have to go. As does the thinking that goes along with why they thought they could get away with it.
And that's just the war. You can say the same thing about Medicare (>$700B per year overrun), Social Security as it goes cash-negative, "stimulus" spending, unemployment extensions, etc.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, silly, I meant he's not pretending not to be part of the 1%. You obviously didn't click on the link I provided. It's a blog written by Moore entitled "Life among the 1%". Meaning his life.

barfo

You can easily find recent YouTube videos of him denying he is in the top 1% or that he's worth $millions. I guess that makes him a big fat liar.

 

[barfo]

You can easily find recent YouTube videos of him denying he is in the top 1% or that he's worth $millions. I guess that makes him a big fat liar.

You'd have to provide a link for that, as I'm not sufficiently interested to search for it.

barfo

 

[ABM]

You'd have to provide a link for that, as I'm not sufficiently interested to search for it.

barfo

[video=youtube;OPiTx49_Ahg]

 

[barfo]

[video=youtube;OPiTx49_Ahg]

I guess that gets back to the definition of the 1%. If it is purely a measure of wealth, then he's in it. He appears to be arguing that it's not just wealth, it's attitudes and actions.

Which, I think is a reasonable definition. Whether it is the 'official' definition of 1%, I don't know.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ar...multimillionaire-michael-moore-denies-part-1/

A transcript of the interview:

Piers Morgan:
I need you to admit the bleeding obvious. I need you to sit here and say, I’m in the 1 percent, because it’s important.

Michael Moore:
Well, I can’t. Because I’m not.

Morgan:
You’re not in if 1 percent?

Moore:
Of course I’m not. How can I be in the 1 percent?

Morgan:
Because you’re worth millions.

Moore:
No, that’s not true. Listen, I do really well. I do well. But what’s the point, though?…

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I make $500k a year, but I shop at Whole Foods instead of corporate groceries and wear TOMS shoes. I'm not in the 1%!

:MARIS61:

 

[Denny Crane]

[video=youtube;tPBo_rjALA0]

LOL

Capitalism made him $millions.

 

[ABM]

He appears to be arguing that it's not just wealth, it's attitudes and actions.

Which might very well be a rather pompous argument, IMO.

Attitudes and actions? I wonder what might be the precise criteria he's comparing?

IIRC, he dumped the entire 1% into one big group and asked the Portland folk why those guys couldn't pay $1 mil each.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

"hey look ,I'm wearing a columbia sporstwear hoodie and don't take care of myself, I'm like you!"

 

[barfo]

Which might very well be a rather pompous argument, IMO.

Attitudes and actions? I wonder what might be the precise criteria he's comparing?

You'd have to ask him, I'm just speculating based on the clip.

IIRC, he dumped the entire 1% into one big group and asked the Portland folk why those guys couldn't pay $1 mil each.

I think he'd have to be included in that, since any tax on 1%'ers would include him - unless there is a special exemption for filmmakers from Michigan.

barfo

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-045625415.html

Many “Occupy Wall Street” protesters arrested in New York City “occupy” more luxurious homes than their “99 percent” rhetoric might suggest, a Daily Caller investigation has found.
For each of the 984 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested in New York City between September 18 and October 15, police collected and filed an information sheet recording the arrestee’s name, age, sex, criminal charge, home address and — in most cases — race. The Daily Caller has obtained all of this information from a source in the New York City government.
Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States.
Some of the homes where “Occupy” arrestees reside, viewed through Google Maps and the Multiple Listing Service real estate database, are the definition of opulence.
Using county assessors and online resources such as Zillow.com, TheDC estimated property values and rents for 87 percent of the homes and 59 percent of the apartments listed in the arrest records.
Even in the nation’s currently depressed housing market, at least 95 of the protesters’ residences are worth approximately $500,000 or more. (RELATED SLIDESHOW: Opulent homes of the ’99 percent’)
The median monthly rent for those living in apartments whose information is readily available is $1,850.
Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. The median age of “Occupy” protesters taken into custody is 27 years.

 

[barfo]

Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States.

While I'm sure it is true that there probably are some 1%'ers claiming to be 99%'ers, that's a pretty misleading use of statistics. What does the median value of housing units in the United States have to do with a group of New Yorkers?

barfo

 

[Ed O]

I guess that gets back to the definition of the 1%. If it is purely a measure of wealth, then he's in it. He appears to be arguing that it's not just wealth, it's attitudes and actions.

Which, I think is a reasonable definition. Whether it is the 'official' definition of 1%, I don't know.

If he's worth $50m and he has it in savings, he'd only need to make .8% interest or so on that capital to be in the 1%, as measured by income.

As I posted, he IS denying that he is in the 1% (see the video someone else posted). The blog you posted was titled "Life Among the 1%" but he does not acknowledge that he is part of the 1%. He basically says that capitalism is not how or why he gets to keep the fruit of his labor and that he gives away more than he thinks most rich people do.

I think my original question of why he won't admit he's in the 1% (but point out that some people who make that much actually want change, just like many in the 99% do not) is still a pretty good one.

Ed O.