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

DaveM said:
Credible sources?? The man himself isn't credible enough for you?

One day he denies being rich...Days later he owns up to it??

You're right about one thing, I absolutely do not take anything that Moore says without a serious filter of skepticism!
Click to expand...

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 $corporation$ $fat$ $cats$?
 
jillio said:
Non-profits cannot show a profit margin at the end of the fiscal year. Period. What do you think the reinvestment criteria is about? No profit showing on the books at the end of the fiscal year. Any funds over and above must be reinvested toward the goals of the non-profit organization.

Unrelated. Do you know what that means? Not related to the non-profit organization carrying a tax exempt status.
Click to expand...

Meh

MYTH: Nonprofit means you must zero-out at the end of the year.

FACT: Great plan…assuming you’ve got a pot of money waiting for you New Year’s Day!

Just a couple of weeks ago, a good friend approached me at church. She was recently elected to serve on the board of a small charity and at her first meeting, several of the existing board members were discussing their dilemma: The organization was quickly approaching the end of the fiscal year, but still had money left over. The conversation revolved around how they could spend down this money before the clock ran out. Well, her instincts told her this didn’t sound right. Good for her! And even better that she asked me about it.

I suspect the origins of this myth might be in the corporate world where departmental budgets are often use-it-or-lose-it. Anyone who has worked for a large corporation may be familiar with the race to spend down the budget in years of surplus. Combine that mindset with the notion of nonprofit, and you’ve got a myth in the making. I certainly hope your nonprofit is not sitting on $0 when the ball drops in Times Square!
Click to expand...

Common Myths Concerning Nonprofits | Foundation Group

How do non profits make money?


Misconceptions
Nonprofit status has nothing to do with a zero balance at the end of the fiscal year, or simply performing community activities of a charitable nature. Nonprofit status is simply a legal designation granted by the IRS.
Click to expand...

What Makes an Organization Nonprofit? | eHow.com
 
DaveM said:
I never, ever accused him of doing anything illegal.

He is just a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

see below -
DaveM said:
It is absolutely beautiful!

Editorials | Hypocrisy of Michael Moore's opulent home | The Detroit News

Do you figure it was paid for by 1 million dollar tax credit he got from Michigan taxpayers on his last film? Or maybe it was the Halliburton stock he made a fortune from through his personal charity.

Either way, it's gorgeous.
Click to expand...

that is illegal.
 
Jiro said:
see below -


that is illegal.
Click to expand...

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?
 
I am no expert over 501c/c3's but I have often thought how do churches make their money.
 
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...

Did it ever occur to you that he may have invested in Halliburton stock to get insider information such as attending shareholder meeting and obtaining financial record?

Do you seriously think he became a millionaire from Halliburton stock? if you're going to harp on this, then you better back it up. Do you know how much he put in money for Halliburton stock? Do you know how much profit he reaped from it?
 
jillio said:
So tell me, how do you know that what you are perceiving is actually reality as perceived by all? You don't. You may interpret that rock as falling. Another may interpret that is the rock simply returning to it's natural state that was interrupted when you picked it up.

Reality will carry on without us as long as there is someone to interpret that reality.

But we are decidedly off topic. If you'd like to create a new thread, I'll be happy to participate.
Click to expand...

If you are correct, then why are you trying to convince a figment of your interpretation (me, apparently) that you are correct? Wouldn't it be more efficient to interpret a reality for yourself that is perfect, where everyone agreed with you?

No need to start a new thread, I've said all I'll say on this topic. I accept the reality that we are not likely to agree on this topic anytime soon. :cool2: :lol:
 
naisho said:
When did Moore invest in Haliburton?
Click to expand...

Sorry naisho, I didn't see your question.

Moore's 1999 IRS statement for his non profit shows he sold Halliburton stock at a 15% profit and reinvested in other large corporations.

He had $280,000 in corporate stock and 100,000 in corporate bonds.
 
naisho said:
I am no expert over 501c/c3's but I have often thought how do churches make their money.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DaveM said:
Sorry naisho, I didn't see your question.

Moore's 1999 IRS statement for his non profit shows he sold Halliburton stock at a 15% profit and reinvested in other large corporations.

He had $280,000 in corporate stock and 100,000 in corporate bonds.
Click to expand...

doesn't sound like it matches up to million-dollar range
 
Jiro said:
Did it ever occur to you that he may have invested in Halliburton stock to get insider information such as attending shareholder meeting and obtaining financial record?

Do you seriously think he became a millionaire from Halliburton stock? if you're going to harp on this, then you better back it up. Do you know how much he put in money for Halliburton stock? Do you know how much profit he reaped from it?
Click to expand...

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:
 
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...

ah... there we go.

he made money from what you mentioned above.... not Halliburton stock or from his non-profit foundation. You are being too selective with the terms. Nothing is free in this world. Everything costs money. His cause costs money. He should get paid for what he is doing so that he can fund his own cause and other people's movements. He's not doing the capitalism like the way corporate fat cats do.
 
Jiro said:
ah... there we go.

he made money from what you mentioned above.... not Halliburton stock or from his non-profit foundation. You are being too selective with the terms. Nothing is free in this world. Everything costs money. His cause costs money. He should get paid for what he is doing so that he can fund his own cause and other people's movements. He's not doing the capitalism like the way corporate fat cats do.
Click to expand...

He is a fat cat capitalist. And there's nothing wrong with that.

He's selling a product that people want enough to voluntarily part with their money to buy. That's a good thing.

Businesses who do the same become demonized for some reason. Even though they create jobs in the process of supplying consumers with what they want or need. Those jobs are taxed to allow the government to function.

Without corporate fat cats, there's no jobs. Without jobs, there's no revenue stream to fund government programs that are needed.

Off topic question for you:
Is there any way to see if someone has commented or do I have to refresh the page?
 
DaveM said:
He is a fat cat capitalist. And there's nothing wrong with that.

He's selling a product that people want enough to voluntarily part with their money to buy. That's a good thing.

Businesses who do the same become demonized for some reason. Even though they create jobs in the process of supplying consumers with what they want or need. Those jobs are taxed to allow the government to function.

Without corporate fat cats, there's no jobs. Without jobs, there's no revenue stream to fund government programs that are needed.
Click to expand...
Michael Moore is demonizing corporations because of their unethical and immoral business practices in getting filthy rich... and bankrupting us.... using tax loops... receiving bail outs at our expense... buying politicians to pass laws for their financial gains...

Michael Moore did not get rich the same way that fat cats do nor did any of such thing. he get paid and funded to expose how fat cats are getting super-rich.

DaveM said:
Off topic question for you:
Is there any way to see if someone has commented or do I have to refresh the page?
Click to expand...
See what others are posing in real-time - AllDeaf Spy
 
Jiro said:
Michael Moore is demonizing corporations because of their unethical and immoral business practices in getting filthy rich... and bankrupting us.... using tax loops... receiving bail outs at our expense... buying politicians to pass laws for their financial gains...

Michael Moore did not get rich the same way that fat cats do nor did any of such thing. he get paid and funded to expose how fat cats are getting super-rich.


See what others are posing in real-time - AllDeaf Spy
Click to expand...

If politicians don't take our money to give to corporations for bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, no bid contracts, and investments then corporations have to make money the way every business does - a voluntary exchange of your money for their product.

It starts with Washington.

Thanks for the link!
 
DaveM said:
If politicians don't take our money to give to corporations for bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, no bid contracts, and investments then corporations have to make money the way every business does - a voluntary exchange of your money for their product.

It starts with Washington.

Thanks for the link!
Click to expand...

right. that's what Michael Moore is exposing and demonizing them about.
 
Back
Top