Capitalism: A Love Story

Main point being, both sides are just as bad as each other....

Moore portrayed in the worst possible light doesn't touch Limbaugh's bigotry and idiocy

Subject: moore

One train of thought I had heard of is if they had taken all the money that was used for the stimulus package and divied it up it, would have given each family approximately $500,000 and if they had spent it, that would have stimulated the economy, saved many from foreclosure and everyone would have won.

Subject: Re: moore

dakotas way wrote: One train of thought I had heard of is if they had taken all the money that was used for the stimulus package and divied it up it, would have given each family approximately $500,000 and if they had spent it, that would have stimulated the economy, saved many from foreclosure and everyone would have won.

Not true.

Population of the U.S = approx 304 million

$500,000 x 304,000,000 = 1e14 = $100,000,000,000,000 = $100 trillion

The most pessimistic reports of the bailout aren't even 1/4 of that, and that totally neglects the fact that most of the financial sector bailout is being paid back with interest, meaning the government actually made money on it.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/08/america_savvy_investor.cfm

Not a big fan of Moore - but respect the message he tries to get out.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=dakotas way]And I have to ask this question. How has the stimulus package benefited anyone you know personally?

The extension of unemployment payments has helped several people I know personally.

My husband was collecting unemployment and luckily he just got another job.
My best friend is going through a very rough divorce and the homeowner retention plan allowed her to restructure her mortgage so that she would be able to make lower payments for a little while.
My biggest regret in life is not going to college and I am actually thinking of taking advantage of the college tax break to go back to school next year.
As far as our children and grandchildren paying for this - I am taking this opportunity and situation to make my son understand that he needs to save for his future, how to be smart with his money and purchases and let him know that its about having what you need and love and not trying to "keep up with the Jones"

Subject: Michael Moore

So if these initial distribution numbers are incorrect (and I will be happy to stand corrected) let's look at this another way. Let's say we took the 9 trillion that ended up being used for the stimulus/bailout and divided it by the 304 million Americans. That gives you $29,605 that could have gone to each and every American to spend to stimulate the economy.

That would have paid for mortgages to save from foreclosure, college tuitions, allowed older people to retire opening new jobs for recent college graduates, new cars (to save the car companies so the government doesn't have to be the owner/manager) hard goods, home improvements, etc.

That in itself would have enhanced life for every American and gotten the economy moving once again and jobs back on track since production would have resumed and purchases made.

And why is it that the present government doesn't want an early payback? Why hold that debt for more interest if it keeps us in these dires straits we're already in. Let the banks and all payback early and move on with life in a forward motion.

mr. met wrote:

Also, one of the reporters for the Weekly Standard, my favorite conservative leaning paper, has accused Moore of fabricating quotes

any specifics?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp?pg=1

The Weekly Standard reporter, Fred Barnes, has discussed this on WNYC - either the Lehrer or Lopate show as I recall.

Subject: Re: Michael Moore

dakotas way wrote: So if these initial distribution numbers are incorrect (and I will be happy to stand corrected) let's look at this another way. Let's say we took the 9 trillion that ended up being used for the stimulus/bailout and divided it by the 304 million Americans. That gives you $29,605 that could have gone to each and every American to spend to stimulate the economy.

The numbers are fallacious, because a significant fraction of the 9 gigabucks of bailouts were investments/guarantees in temporarily illiquid markets, not a random spending spree, and much will be repaid, some with profit.
For example...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/30/us-sees-a-profit-as-big-b_n_272399.html
Not to mention that another slice is going to badly needed infrastructure projects that will allow a faster recovery and more efficient economy when consumer spending finally picks up; stuff we need that the private economy isn't able or prepared to build during a recession, even if consumers had 30K in hand.

If you just gave me $30,000, and I put it in a savings account in Citibank (since most everyone is hoarding cash) which then collapsed without govt. assistance and emptied the FDIC, returning me pennies on the dollar at some much later date, I don't think that would have been better.

mr. met wrote:

Gots to play the race card eh.

someone else brought up rush limbaugh. immediately i thought "racist bigot." you know, because he IS one.

Interesting, as you describe him, Limbaugh sounds very similar to Obama’s pastor of 20 years, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I would say that Moore is as bad as Limbaugh and the president’s former spiritual advisor. They all:

-preach to the converted
-lie
-encourage misinformation
-fuel hate
-stifle growth and conversation
-and the list goes on…

dakotas way wrote: I know it is unreasonable to give $30,000 to everyone. I was just making a point that it would kick start the economy and benefit the average person better than bailing out companies that were totally irresponsible with funds and saved by the government only to give their executives huge bonuses right after the fact..

no, it wouldn't. people would use the money primarily to pay off debt, or put it into savings, and it wouldn't be recycled into the economy at all.

the bailout, and our economy, are a lot more complex than you're making it out to be. the government didn't hand out free money and then declare the crisis averted.

the entire banking system was about to collapse. let me repeat that: the entire banking system was facing the brink of collapse.

I know what to say. There is a big world outside of NYC with many views, opinions and ideas.

let's work out what you're saying here. you think jeremiah wright is a racist, right? are you saying that that racism has rubbed off on obama? if not, why bring it up? are you just repeating Glenn Beck's talking points?

pokersloper wrote: I know what to say. There is a big world outside of NYC with many views, opinions and ideas.

oooh! thankfully we have you to hold our hand while we break out of liberal bubble!

In the long run, I am not sure that bigotry is any more or less harmful then lying.

i think bigotry from someone like limbaugh, who millions of sheep listen to for guidance, is dangerous.

moore does not propogate hate.

mr. met wrote:

In the long run, I am not sure that bigotry is any more or less harmful then lying.

i think bigotry from someone like limbaugh, who millions of sheep listen to for guidance, is dangerous.

moore does not propogate hate.

Mr. Met,

From what I know of Limbaugh, he is just like Michael Moore - they both treat their listeners as unintelligent lumps, sheep as you say. Sounds like you like team Moore, but make no mistake, you are playing in the same league as Limbaugh.

mr. met wrote: Parkersloper,

do you think Moore fights for good causes?

do you think Limbaugh fights for good causes?

Mr. Met,

As I have said, I am not familiar with Limbaugh except for what WNYC and Howard Stern have to say. Sure Moore has some good causes, as Limbaugh probably does as well. But Moore does not offer a nuanced look at anything. He is preaching to the converted. I prefer public radio stations like the ones in NYC, Boston and San Francisco because they offer nuanced conversations that consider all political sides.

Moore is an entertainer, he is not an informer.

mr. met wrote:

Moore is an entertainer, he is not an informer.

yes! Moore makes documentaries. movies. they are not news. people go to them and decide what they will. he makes movies about topics he is interested in and gives his take on them.

Limbaugh is a news source. people look to him to be informed about issues, expecting to hear facts. he is a member of the media, Moore is not.

Calling Limbaugh a news source is like calling Howard Stern a news source. People listen and decide what they will. In the case of Moore and Limbaugh, people probably listen to so they don't have to think.