Marvel at the beauty of Michael Moore's 10,000 sq ft summer mansion!

DeafBadger said:
And their pastors drive around in expensive cars, live in a grand house paid for by the church, and taking expensive trips to religions conferences and golf and live it up, in their own way.

Not most churches, but it happens.

This is a case of labeling assets in such a way that the lifestyle can still be lived, but called something else.

Business owners do this with different legal classifications of their operations. Non-profits can also do so, I would think.

The pastors don't "own" it, the church does.

The businessman doesn't "own" it, the business does.

The non-profit administrator doesn't "own" it, the non-profit does.

But they can live a grand lifestyle and use it as if it were their own.

It's legal relabeling of assets. It's legal hokus-spokus. It's not about "ownership," it's about "control." Ownership is irrelevant if you have control of the use of assets.

That doesn't mean that's what Michael Moore is doing though.
Click to expand...

I've noticed the same thing. I'm not condoning the church or anything because it would be hypocritical of me to do so as I've been in a church since childhood and still do go to catch up or learn the latest, which is how I get informed about religion. But I've observed similar as you've said, church servants affording stuff like cars, and even church homes when they gave up their work life to become a full time follower of the gospel. It strikes me, like wow, I had no idea that was even possible. Some churches must be raking in a lot of dough if they have and can pay off multiple full time serving ones.

There may be more to it than meets the eye.
 
Jiro said:
right. that's what Michael Moore is exposing and demonizing them about.
Click to expand...

Well....Michael Moore demonizes capitalism and advocates a central planning type system.

Moore wants more government in the marketplace. This is how we bankrupted ourselves and passed regulations that lead to cronyism.

And don't get me started on his praise of Cuba!

Just my opinion of course.
 
jillio said:
You cannot get around the fact that a non-profit cannot show a profit margin at the end of the fiscal year. Period. You just keep trying to twist and turn. But you cannot get around that fact. You are making yourself dizzier than usual by even trying.:laugh2:
Click to expand...

Ya know, I was hoping someone else would bring this up, but it bears saying especially since you have been so nasty to other posters. You have used the phrase "profit margin" 5 times to describe end of year profits. "Profit margin" is a price phrase....it refers to the % of profit in each dollar of sales, not end of year profit. And as already shown above having to zero out your books is a myth.

Profit Margin
A measure of how well a company controls its costs. It is calculated by dividing a company's profit by its revenues and expressing the result as a percentage. The higher the profit margin is, the better the company is thought to control costs. Investors use the profit margin to compare companies in the same industry and well as between industries to determine which are the most profitable.
Click to expand...

profit margin financial definition of profit margin. profit margin finance term by the Free Online Dictionary.

If we have 501(c)(3) status, we have to spend our account down to zero every year.

Not true. The IRS allows 501(c)(3) organizations to carry over as much money as its members see fit. You can also make and hold profit on any of your activities. “Nonprofit” means you can’t have shareholders who take money from the business, as a for-profit company does. It doesn’t prevent the group from making money to further its mission.
Click to expand...

Taxes, PTOs, and the IRS - PTOToday.com
 
naisho said:
I've noticed the same thing. I'm not condoning the church or anything because it would be hypocritical of me to do so as I've been in a church since childhood and still do go to catch up or learn the latest, which is how I get informed about religion. But I've observed similar as you've said, church servants affording stuff like cars, and even church homes when they gave up their work life to become a full time follower of the gospel. It strikes me, like wow, I had no idea that was even possible. Some churches must be raking in a lot of dough if they have and can pay off multiple full time serving ones.

There may be more to it than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

It has been a very longstanding practice of churches in general to provide housing and a stipend for their pastors. The idea is that it reduces the financial burden on the pastor's family so that he or she can dedicate their time more fully to the Lord's work. It made more sense when American society wasn't as wealthy.

Many pastors today look at their calling as a profession. They will apply at several churches, trying to get the highest pay. It used to be that pastors stayed with a church for life. Not anymore. Most are looking for the next raise. So churches are competing with others to get a "great" pastor in. What is a "great pastor"? Someone who is charismatic (personality, not doctrine), can organize well, is a great fund raiser, gives "great sermons" (not great chastisement, chastisement is so old-school).

Churches are run by administrative boards made up of people that the pastor usually asks to join/be elected to the board. Usually, this means that the church boards are run by people who are very mild, and won't stand up to anybody. They will just rubber-stamp anything that has a good-sounding verse attached to it to justify it.

So this effectively leaves the pastor as the one strong church personality in control of pretty much everything, in practice.

So, a bunch of pastors competing for pay, effective influence over church boards which control the church bank account and loans, and if the pastor is any good at public relations, a healthy cash flow from donations. (Most churches are one or two payments away from defaults on their loans. This gives pastors leverage over the board. If the loans are ever paid off, the board may develop some balls about the matter of the pastor's salary.)

Result: Asset and lifestyle bloat.

Best example: TV evangelists

Sorry, I'm pretty cynical about this stuff.

There are some great pastors out there who are serious about their profession. It's really a sign of the times. People in general in every area, want to have their cake and eat it too. Religion is no exception. But there are some churches and pastors who don't do this.
 
Jiro said:
you are missing the point. The Conservatives and pundits are attempting to throw a smokescreen and distract a very issue of what's wrong with this country.

"1%" is not about people who make $350,00 and more. It's about the rich and power who controls our system and took advantage of it by getting bailouts at our expense. They are also the one who took advantage of the poor and outsourcing their factories to Third World countries. Did Michael Moore do any of that? Did Michael Moore act like $corporation$ $fat$ $cats$?
Click to expand...

It's funny that the the conservatives here criticising Moore for making money are no where near a $350,000 salary themselves. :giggle:

Nor do they appear to have any grasp of the concept of social strategies and the ways their lives are controlled by the upper echelon.
 
DaveM said:
Please see TXgolfer's post above me. If Moore profited from shares of Halliburton, as long as he kept his taxes in order it is 100% legal.

Aside from the question of what he used the stock shares for, what about the ethical question of him investing in a so called "war wachine."

This is what he ranted about for years, as he chooses to invest in Halliburton?
Click to expand...

How about going a back and answering the question in post #34?
 
DaveM said:
Jiro, he didn't make millions from Halliburton stock.

His millions come from lucrative book deals, speaking fees, movie successes, lawsuits(he sued the Weinsteins for 2.7 million) etc...

I don't begrudge the man for success, he made it honestly.

But it's just funny to me when I see him rail against capitalism. :lol:
Click to expand...

Funny how you spot hypocrisy on others, but fail to see it when you look in a mirror.:hmm:
 
DaveM said:
Well....Michael Moore demonizes capitalism and advocates a central planning type system.

Moore wants more government in the marketplace. This is how we bankrupted ourselves and passed regulations that lead to cronyism.

And don't get me started on his praise of Cuba!

Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

Moore is first and foremost a film maker(hence the house he lives in) and at some other level an activist(if it helps his films). His film making makes him money and that is the reason he does it. It's not different than charities putting crying kids on TV to pull at the heart strings and wallets of people who will be sympathetic.

As far as the idea of more government in the marketplace, it's not a new idea and was it was more regulated(by both sides) until Republicans and later Democrats(Clinton) deregulated it. The deregulation of the market led to the housing bubble and collapse as well as the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. These things are exactly what we tried to guard against after the First Great Depression.

The idea that people(businesses) will police themselves is right on par with selling people "perfectly good" swamp land in Florida.
 
DaveM said:
Well....Michael Moore demonizes capitalism and advocates a central planning type system.

Moore wants more government in the marketplace. This is how we bankrupted ourselves and passed regulations that lead to cronyism.

And don't get me started on his praise of Cuba!

Just my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

Uh no....deregulation is what bankrupted Wall Street. When Wall Street WAS regulated (Glass-Steagall Act), there hadn't been any financial crises for 45 years.
 
jillio said:
I think I'm going to go to bed. I get tired of seeing the same thing posted again and again by the conservatives after it has already been shown to be in error 1000 times. God, what a bunch of obsessives.:lol:
Click to expand...

I know how you feel.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Uh no....deregulation is what bankrupted Wall Street. When Wall Street WAS regulated (Glass-Steagall Act), there hadn't been any financial crises for 45 years.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton repealed the G-S Act back in Nov of 1999.
 
kokonut said:
Bill Clinton repealed the G-S Act back in Nov of 1999.
Click to expand...

It's a bi-Partisan issue - both parties condoned repeals and endorsed de-regulation and just FYI:

"The bill that ultimately "repealed" the Act was brought up in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[15] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[16] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[17]"
 
DeafCaroline said:
It's a bi-Partisan issue - both parties condoned repeals and endorsed de-regulation and just FYI:

"The bill that ultimately "repealed" the Act was brought up in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[15] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[16] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[17]"
Click to expand...

Now, DC, you know that Koko is not interested in actually knowing and understanding the political process or accuracy in his claims. How dare you try to educate him with factual information!:giggle:
 
kokonut said:
Bill Clinton repealed the G-S Act back in Nov of 1999.
Click to expand...

Alan Greenspan worked under Clinton and he deregulated the market with the help of congress and the president(the same as he did during the Bush era). To be fair, more was done during the Bush era.

The only person who really stood up to stop it(I'm sure there were silent others) was Brooksley Born and they canned her.

And, unless Elizabeth Warren makes it to presidential office(unlikely) I don't see the market going anywhere but downward.

I don't know what economics class Bernard Bernanke took, but declaring interest rates to stay at their current rate for two years raises serious questions about whether the man is sane. The housing market will not stabilize as long as interest rates prop up the principal on housing.
 
DeafCaroline said:
It's a bi-Partisan issue - both parties condoned repeals and endorsed de-regulation and just FYI:

"The bill that ultimately "repealed" the Act was brought up in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[15] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[16] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[17]"
Click to expand...
Right. Yet, he signed it. All parties are guilty. Good thing he revamped the Community Reinvestment Act a few years earlier.
 
kokonut said:
Right. Yet, he signed it. All parties are guilty. Good thing he revamped the Community Reinvestment Act a few years earlier.
Click to expand...

And you call yourself a pundit!:laugh2: No wonder you are hanging out here. No doubt your blogs aren't getting any hits.:laugh2:
 
Back
Top