Home Loans and Support

Who owns Fox News?

Discussion in 'Fox News' started by Moe, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. Moe

    Moe Call 1-800-779-4547 Staff Member Loan Safe Mortgage

    [​IMG] The American people need to understand that the news media is owned by powerful families and corporations who push one political agenda or another. Fox News is no different. Many critics think that they are playing the American people against one another with their stranglehold on media.

    News Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    News Corporation (often abbreviated to News Corp.) is the world's second largest media conglomerate (behind Walt Disney Company) as of 2008 and the world's third largest in entertainment as of 2009.

    The company's Chairman,

    Chief Executive Officer and Founder is Rupert Murdoch. (Pictured Above)



    In August 2005 the Murdoch family owned only about 29% of the company. However, nearly all of these shares were voting shares, and Rupert Murdoch retained effective control of the company. Nonetheless, John Malone of Liberty Media had built up a large stake, with about half of the shares being voting shares. Therefore, in November 2006, News Corporation announced its intention to transfer its 38.5 per cent managing interest in DirecTV Group to John Malone's Liberty Media; in return it bought back Liberty's 16.3% shares in News Corp., giving Murdoch tighter control of the latter firm.


    Murdoch sold 17.5 million class A shares in December 2007.

    [​IMG]Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who is an investment tycoon and chairman of the Kingdom Holding Company, said in an interview with Charlie Rose that he had about a 6-7% stake in News Corp.

    Years after when Elektra Records was absorbed in 2004, News Corporation owned half of the re-issues from the record label company.

    Is the owner of Fox News and the reporters really fair and balanced? Or is it mostly propaganda to influence elections and public opinion? You decide!

  2. Moe

    Moe Call 1-800-779-4547 Staff Member Loan Safe Mortgage

    In October 1999, Time Magazine remarked that "Rupert Murdoch is the first press baron to be a monster of the entire world. That's globalization for you."

    The Time article goes on to say that Murdoch's "achievement is that he is the only media mogul to have created and to control a truly global media empire. He understood sooner than anyone else the opportunities offered by new technology--computers, satellites, wireless communications--to create first an international press and then a television domain."

    Murdoch of Fox News Admits Manipulating the News for Agenda and supporting Bush Wars


    Rupert Murdoch of News Corp / Fox News Admits Manipulating the News for Agenda - Admits he supported the Bush Agenda in Iraq - He is part of the Bilderburg group - This is why Fox News has an agenda against Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential Election
  3. Moe

    Moe Call 1-800-779-4547 Staff Member Loan Safe Mortgage

    Bill Moyers: Rupert Murdoch, the Antichrist


    Rupert Murdoch just bought the Wall Street Journal

  4. AZOwner

    AZOwner LoanSafe Member

    It's not a wonder listening to news is nausiating.

    We have really led our "leaders" to believe we are clueless -- that is the only reason I can see that they would think we could possible swallow the crap they are dealing.

    Time for change, and not obama change -- loansafe.org change.
  5. Moe

    Moe Call 1-800-779-4547 Staff Member Loan Safe Mortgage

    AZ, many people like you are aware of the powers at be behind the media. I just want to bring this to the attention of the people. No media is fair and balanced and Fox News is NO exception. So is NBC. MSNBC, CNN etc.

    They ALL are pushing agendas and have strangleholds on the media. The internet is changing that and we can do it!!
  6. Moe

    Moe Call 1-800-779-4547 Staff Member Loan Safe Mortgage

    OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

    Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know.

  7. Moe

    Moe Call 1-800-779-4547 Staff Member Loan Safe Mortgage

    Fox and Enemies


    Is the Obama administration right about Fox News?

    The Obama administration hasn’t made much of a secret of its displeasure with Fox News. In June, the president said that there was “one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration,” a claim so obvious in its target he needn’t name names. And in September, Obama skipped an appearance on Fox Sunday Morning, on the same day he found time to visit with all the other major networks—and Univision, too.

    Both incidents, and some other background, were recounted over the weekend by The New York Times’s Brian Stelter. The article is particularly notable because it is part of a series of outings where the White House has ratcheted up its harsh tone towards Fox.

    “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House’s communications director, told Stelter, elaborating that “we’re not going to legitimize them as a news

    Source: Fox and Enemies : CJR

    CNN Debates The White House vs. FOX News Feud

    CNN's "Situation Room" Debates The White House vs. FOX News Feud - 10/08/09


    From CNN: Anita Dunn White House Communication Director:

    Fox News Is The "Research Arm Of The Republican Party" - 10/11/09


    Glenn Beck Goes After White House For Criticizing FOX News

    FOX's Glenn Beck Goes After White House [Anita Dunn White House Communication Director] For Criticizing FOX News - 10/12/09

  8. Big Booger

    Big Booger Guest

    Is it possible that any of the networks could actually report the truth and be fair and balanced? I think not - they all have an agenda and it's money and power -
  9. Chased around and around

    Chased around and around LoanSafe Member

    Hmm lets see now, 87% of all news is liberal. Do you ever get the truth from them, nope, never. Liberal and facts don't go together.

    News no longer reports the news, now they make the news, plain and simple...
  10. Moe

    Moe Call 1-800-779-4547 Staff Member Loan Safe Mortgage

    I am sorry, but it doesn't matter if the news is Liberal, Republican our Democrat, it is all spin and agenda driven.

    You simply CANNOT have a fair and balanced media because they are owned by corporations who's owners have products to sell and wars to promote. For a almost 80 years Main Street America has bought these lies has the truth and now many of us have been awoken.

    All I am trying to do with these forum threads is show anyone who relies on just Fox for their news and information is making a serious mistake. As would any person exclusively watching another network like MSNBC or CNN.

    Most corporate media journalist and these big hot shots are nothing more than corporate puppets for their bosses. They say the wrong thing and the strings are cut. This is COMMON knowledge now and we all need to realize that what we are watching is nothing more than propaganda and illusions to push their agendas.
  11. otisanddinga

    otisanddinga LoanSafe Member

    Chased around,

    I agree. Fox obviously has an agenda, but what is wrong with questioning Obama's policies???That's America....Everyone including mainstream media questioned everything the Bush administration did, which is good. But Obama is above questioning? Sorry, I will question ANY President's policies especially one's that make no sense and have not worked in the past. Remember, we the people, voted him in and can vote him out. ie:Jimmy Carter
  12. caldwell02

    caldwell02 LoanSafe Member

    Absolutely Moe. You've got to watch them all and also listen to NPR and watch Democracy Now and Bill Moyers and read different papers. If you are not able to do that, and many days/weeks I can't, I am WELL aware that the truth is somewhere in-between. The morning shows are also ridiculous. I have the TV going while I get ready for work. The major networks seem like they were created by the exact same people. Nothing new. As far as FOX - no way it's fair and balanced, but it's gotta be in the mix if you are to make a semi-informed decision. I say semi-informed because too many people rely only on TV for their news and I think that's a real mistake. I'm redefining the word that defines my politics, and it does lean more towards the liberal, but I still need to hear O'reilly and company. Sorry but I still refuse to listen to Rush.
  13. Moe

    Moe Call 1-800-779-4547 Staff Member Loan Safe Mortgage

    outstanding - I agree that someone needs to keep Obama accountable, but all accountability needs to be fair and balanced. FYI, Fox is the most unfair and unbalanced News show on earth.

    Fox and Murdoch were huge advocates of Bush and his Tyrannical policies that basically took a lot of freedoms (the Patriot Act) from the people and looted trillions via the Bail Out of Wall Street from the Treasury. Fox high fived Bush throughout his 8 years of American lies, theft and destruction.

    I think Fox News should hold the same responsibilities as we place on the Bush Administration. Without Fox and Rupert Murdoch, Bush could have never did what he did during his 8 years in office. If Bush goes down as the worst President in American history, well, then Fox News should be the worst news show in American History because they drove the Bush propaganda machine.

    Media needs to hold everyone accountable and that just does not happen on that box we call our TV. It is only meant to sell us worthless things, politicians and wars

    Caldwell - I agree with a lot of what you said. All I ask is that you do not place labels on yourself. There is no reason why we cant listen to someone who calls themselves a Conservative Republican and 5 minutes later see what the Liberal media has to say and then listen to independent media like NPR and Democracy Now. Then form our own educated decision.

    I think the people Main Street need to divest themselves from any previous political, media or shock jock affiliations and become independent thinkers, voters and people. I watch Beck, O'reiley and competitors like Olberman and Lou Dobbs. Sure listen to them to pick out that facts, but don't hang on to their every word like it is the Gospel because it is the corporate gospel that they preach.

    These forced labels placed by media on the people are tools of deception used to divide and conquer our thoughts, emotions and actions. Until we all realize that is what they are trying to do, then many of us will remain under their control and never under their own. These will be the people who suffer and die never really understanding how this world truly works.

    Money and profits come before suffering people. Don't EVER FORGET that!
  14. Big Booger

    Big Booger Guest

    [​IMG]Collaborative research on corporations

    Home » Industries » Entertainment

    News Corp

    Last edited by on June 17, 2009 - 11:05pm
    Company Snapshot:

    Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation media conglomerate includes cable networks such as Fox, Fox Business Channel, National Geographic and FX; 35 television stations; 175 newspapers -- including the recently-acquired Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and Barron's; other publications including TVGuide and SmartMoney; book publishers HarperCollins; film production companies 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios; numerous Web sites including MarketWatch.com, and non-media holdings including the National Rugby League.

    Chief executive officer:

    Rupert Murdoch



    2008 Global Fortune 500 rank: 280

    Net Income:

    $ US 3,426

    Total revenue:

    $ US 28,655 million

    Corporate accountabilityAccountability overview:

    Charges of Media Bias

    The groups FoxAttack and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) track examples of inaccuracy and bias at Fox News.

    Shareholder Disputes

    On April 7, 2006 The New York Times reported that The News Corporation had settled a shareholder lawsuit two weeks before the opening of a trial in a lawsuit that accused the company of defrauding investors by denying them a vote on whether to extend an antitakeover resolution adopted in 2004.

    A longstanding gadfly favorite, the resolutions generally ask that any current or future poison pill be put to a shareholder vote. Because poison pills are the single takeover defense that boards can enact unilaterally, shareholders have often sought pledges from companies to seek shareholder approval of a pill within a reasonable time after adoption to prevent potential abuses. But as witnessed at News Corporation in 2005, such a policy may have no legal standing if the board chooses to ignore it. Stephen Mayne: ‘Why News Corp has to change’

    Tax issues:

    In 1999, BBC summarized a report by the Economist that found that in the four years up to June 30, 1998, News Corporation and its subsidiaries paid just 6% of the consolidated pre-tax profits in taxes. Although the opaque nature of the business makes it difficult to know how it achieved such low rates, analysts suggested Murdoch's team employed three strategies:
    * Tax relief claimed on debt interest repayments. * A reliance on off-shore tax havens. *

    Exploiting global differences in accounting standards.

    (According to the Economist, "finding out the specifics of News Corporation’s tax affairs is difficult because of the company’s complex structure. In its latest accounts, the group lists roughly 800 subsidiaries, including some 60 incorporated in such tax havens as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Netherlands Antilles and the British Virgin Islands. ... This structure, dictated by Murdoch’s elaborate tax planning, has some bizarre consequences. The most profitable of News Corporation’s British operations in the 1990s was not the Sunday Times, or its successful satellite television business, BSkyB. It was News Publishers, a company incorporated in Bermuda.")

    When a congressional panel asked Murdoch if he was hiding money in tax havens, including communist Cuba, he responded that "we might have in the past, I'm not denying that." The Washington Post reported in 1997 that "through the deft use of international accounting loopholes and offshore tax havens, Murdoch has paid corporate income taxes at one-fifth the rate of his chief U.S. rivals throughout the 1990s, according to corporate documents and company officials." His company "reduces its annual tax bill by channeling profits through dozens of subsidiaries in low-tax or no-tax places such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. The overseas profits from movies made by 20th Century Fox, for instance, flow into a News Corp.-controlled company in the Caymans, where they are not taxed."

    IRS officials say that "U.S.-based companies face U.S. taxes on their offshore subsidiaries in the Caymans and elsewhere if more than 50 percent of the subsidiary is controlled by
    American shareholders. But that doesn't apply to News Corp., an Australian company."

    According to the New York Times, one of its lobbying firms focuses almost exclusively on parts of the tax code that affect the News Corporation. "By taking advantage of a provision in the law that allows expanding companies like Mr. Murdoch’s to defer taxes to future years, the News Corporation paid no federal taxes in two of the last four years (i.e. between 2003-2006), and in the other two it paid only a fraction of what it otherwise would have owed. During that time, Securities and Exchange Commission records show, the News Corporation’s domestic pretax profits topped $9.4 billion."


    Murdoch told biographer William Shawcross that much of the criticism of him in the UK is attributable to his success in breaking the print unions and his success in establishing satellite broadcasting. "I'm a catalyst for change … You can't be an outsider and be successful over 30 years without leaving a certain amount of scar tissue around the place."

    Environment and product safety:
    On August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort (Jane Akre and Steve Wilson's) news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for her termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees. The two verteran reporters had been working on an investigation of synthetic growth hormone, or BGH (a Monsanto product -- Monsanto was a Fox News advertiser). The story they had been working on was about how America’s milk supply has quietly become adulterated with BGH. Pressure from Monsanto led Fox TV to fire the two award-winning reporters and sweep under the rug much of what they discovered but were never allowed to broadcast. For more on the story, go here.

    Human rights:

    Murdoch has been criticized for doing business with Chinese Communist Party leaders and their children. According to the New York Times Fox News helped China’s leading state broadcaster develop a news Web site, while Murdoch worked with the Communist Youth League on a risky television venture. Mr. Murdoch’s third wife, Wendi, is a mainland Chinese who once worked for his Hong Kong-based satellite broadcaster, Star TV. But Murdoch says he hit a “brick wall†after bidding for prime-time broadcasting rights and failing. Murdoch cooperates closely with China’s censors and state broadcasters, several people who worked for him in China told the Times.

    A group of China-based reporters for The Wall St. Journal accused him in a letter to Dow Jones shareholders of “sacrificing journalistic integrity to satisfy personal and political aims,†a charge News Corporation denied.
    Human rights activists have reportedly vented their spleens against Murdoch for supposedly calling the Dalai Lama "a very political old monk shuffling around in Gucci shoes". Ian Johnson, a Journal reporter who worked in China from 1994 to 2001, wrote that during the same period, "Murdoch went from being a critic of Beijing—once famously saying that satellite television would be "an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere"—to an archetypical pro-Beijing businessman. He pulled the BBC from Star TV, for example, and sold the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, which until then had often criticized the mainland's human rights record. And of course he killed the memoirs of former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten, who had long been a thorn in Beijing's side."

    Political influence (national and international):

    The New York Times reported that Murdoch uses "a gamut of tools — not just campaign contributions, but also jobs for former government officials and media exposure that promotes allies while attacking adversaries, sometimes viciously — all of which he has used to further his financial interests and establish his legitimacy in the United States, interviews and government records show."

    For example, after supporting a congressional move to limit media ownership, Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, agreed to a compromise that allowed companies to own stations reaching to 39 percent of American homes. Months before, HarperCollins, Mr. Murdoch’s publishing house, signed a $250,000 book deal to publish Mr. Lott’s memoir, “Herding Cats.†(Mr. Lott, an outspoken critic of media consolidation, agreed to the increase because it was still lower than what Mr. Powell had proposed, his spokesman, Nick Simpson, later told the NY Times.)

    The deal reminded critics of the time HarperCollins gave Republican Newt Gingrich $4.5 million for a book contract just as Congress was preparing to redraw media ownership rules.

    Other prominent politicians have also received significant deals from HarperCollins: Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) received $24,506 from HarperCollins for “Passion for Truth,†according to a NYTimes review of Specter's financial disclosure forms. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, received $141,666 for her book “American Heroines.â€

    All sit on either the Commerce or Judiciary Committees that most closely oversee the media business. In addition, HarperCollins has given book deals to Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), as well as a $1 million advance to Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court.

    In 2007, Murdoch's acquisition of the Wall St. Journal elicited criticism from others in the media establishment familiar with his tactics:
    “It is hard to imagine Rupert Murdoch publishing The New York Post in Midtown Manhattan, with all of his personal and political biases and business interests reflected every day, while publishing The Wall Street Journal in Downtown Manhattan with no interference whatsoever,†James Ottaway Jr., a 5 percent shareholder and former director of Dow Jones, said.

    Murdoch's Washington Lobby Corps, paid $11 million between 1998 and 2007, includes:
    • Anthony Podesta, former counsel to Senator Ted Kennedy (a frequent target of Murdoch's Boston Herald);
    • Ed Gillespie, former Republican Party chairman;
    • Former New York Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato
    • The firm headed by former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York.
    • Jack Quinn, former White House counsel under Clinton.
    A Times analysis of campaign finance records "shows that (between 1997 and 2007), Republicans have received only a slight majority — 56 percent — of the $4.76 million in campaign donations from the Murdoch family and the News Corporation’s political action committees and employees. Since Democrats won control of Congress in the 2006 elections, the company and its employees have given more than twice as much to Democrats as to Republicans, the records show."

    Gary Ginsberg and Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of the News Corporation, were hosts of back-to-back fund-raisers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, one in New York and one in Los Angeles.
    Murdoch donated $500,000 to former president Clinton’s Global Initiative.
    News Corporation turned to Republican allies to put pressure on the Nielsen Corporation to drop plans to switch to a more sophisticated technology to calculate ratings that television stations use to set advertising rates for local programming. Senator Conrad Burns, a Montana

    Republican who was chairman of the Commerce Committee’s communications subcommittee, and Representative Vito J. Fossella, a New York Republican, introduced legislation that threatened Nielsen with government oversight. According to the Times, during the year the legislation was introduced (2005), the bill’s 29 sponsors and co-sponsors together received at least $144,650 in donations from the News Corporation’s political action committees and lobbyists.

    Dale Snape, who lobbied for Nielsen, told the Times: “It was a classic example of him using all his resources to try to politically influence an outcome — he bought a Hill debate. It was scorched earth, and it was all about money. They created a public interest furor where there was none.â€

    Atlantic Monthly editor James Fallows wrote in the September 2003 issue:

    "Murdoch seems to be most interested in the political connections that will help his business … In short, some aspects of News Corp's programming, positions, and alliances serve conservative political ends, and others do not. But all are consistent with the use of political influence for corporate advantage. In the books I read and interviews I conducted, I found only one illustration of Murdoch's using his money and power for blatantly political ends: his funding of The Weekly Standard. The rest of the time he makes his political points when convenient as an adjunct to making money."

    Social responsibility:

    Ties to Big Tobacco As Sourcewatch reports, Murdoch was on the Board of Directors of Philip Morris from August 1989 until sometime in the 1990s, and there is some evidence that the ties influenced the coverage of tobacco-related issues by Murdoch's news companies.

    In 2004, News Corporation shareholders voted to approve the company's proposal to reincorporate to the United States.

    CrocTail subsidiary informationEmbedded CrocTail tool for interactively exploring information on company subsidiaries parsed from SEC filings.

    More information...

    Your browser does not support iframes. Please visit CrocTail : information about corporations and their subsidaries

    HistoryAfter taking over a family newspaper operation and establishing News Corporation in his native Australia, Rupert Murdoch entered the British market in the 1960s and by the 1980s had become a dominant force in the U.S. market. News Corporation went heavily into debt to subsidize its purchase of Twentieth Century Fox and the formation of the Fox television network in the 1980s; by the mid-1990s News Corporation had eliminated much of that debt.

    News Corporation operates in nine different media on six continents. News Corporation has been masterful in utilizing its various properties for cross-promotional purposes, and at using its media power to curry influence with public officials worldwide. "Murdoch seems to have Washington in his back pocket," observed one industry analyst after News Corporation received another favorable ruling (New York Times, 7/26/96).

    News Corp. drew on its experience in establishing the most profitable satellite television system in the world, the booming British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB), as well as its U.S. Fox television network to provide programming for its nascent satellite ventures in Asia and Latin America.

    Financial informationStock ticker symbol:
    NWS and NWS.A

    Fiscal year:

    Fiscal year:

    Major lines of business/segments:

    Filmed Entertainment (20th Century Fox; Fox Studios, etc.);
    Television (Fox);
    Cable (Fox News, Fox Business, Fox Movie, FX, Fox Sports, National Geographic);
    Direct Broadcast TV (BSkyB, DirecTV, Sky Italia);
    Magazines and Inserts (Big League, Inside Out, ALPHA News America Marketing, Smart Source, The Weekly Standard, Gemstar - TV Guide International Inc.);
    Newspapers & Information Services (22 papers in Australia; UK: The Sun, TLS, Sunday Times, etc.; US: Wall St. Journal, New York Post);
    Books (HarperCollins)

    Additional descriptive dataLink to full list of subsidiaries:


    Investor website:

    SourcesWatchdogs and related campaigns:

    Stop Big Media (Free Press)
    Benton Foundation (Media Ownership Issues)
    Center for Media and Democracy
    Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
    Fox Attacks
    Don't Fox with Local News
    Smoke Free Movies
    Newspaper Guild Communication Workers of America (Dow Jones workers)

    Related reading:

    Rupert Murdoch: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Media Wizard
    Murdoch: The Making of a Media Empire (1997)
    The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly
    Power Without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain
    Outfoxed - Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (DVD)
    Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media
  15. otisanddinga

    otisanddinga LoanSafe Member

    Moe, I completely agree but what about the Democratic controlled congress? They were equally responsible for most of the past 8 years and still are and in my opinion take the major role in the demise of Fannie and Freddie no doc, no down loans to people who could not afford? I always put a 20% down on my homes.Fox has its agenda but only Fox and this website are asking the pertinent questions we, the people, deserve to know. We elected Obama to fix this mess not complicate it more.Unemployment up, stimulus not working, trillions of debt for our future...Thanks, Moe...
  16. Moe

    Moe Call 1-800-779-4547 Staff Member Loan Safe Mortgage

    Our Congress is a complete failure. It's cancer on the Hill and it (most all Congress) needs to be eradicated in 2010. I think our country's fate depends on this.

    I think that we have a corporate controlled congress with corporations who flip flop from one party to another based on who can be corrupted and who cant. Looks like both parties are as corrupt as ALL get out and the media is the vehicle for that corruption.

    Looking at a Republican and a Democrat these days is akin to looking at an ant and knowing its gender. They are all just coporate puppets.
  17. caldwell02

    caldwell02 LoanSafe Member

    Moe - I agree to the failure of congress but quite frankly I don't see anyone on the scene that is going to get elected and change anything. It's unfortunately going to take longer than the 12 months between now and next november.

    That said, it's gotta start. If anyone anywhere sees someone with a lick of sense who can actually get elected with a push from us, then I'm in. Obama was elected because we/I wanted his change and I do not see it and yes I'm impatient but why can't it change? I'll tell you why - because we have to not only get congress outta there but if Geithner continues to have Dimon on his speed dial then changing congress does NOTHING. We need a fundamental change. fundamental. I'm not saying I know what that is exactly, but I feel it in my gut.

    As far as labeling myself a "liberal," I'm sure you misunderstood. I lean towards that and always have. I lean towards healthcare for all and a right to free education and a right to feeding all children. I lean towards not spending money on war and spending money on people's welfare. In my mind that is not the conservative point of view, hence the label I place on myself for now. Maybe I'm a socio-capitalist. Who knows and quite frankly who cares. For that matter maybe I'm a socialist because - remember when Obama told Joe the Plumber he wanted to spread the wealth around and the rich guys in america had a heart attack? I applauded Obama. I've learned alot on loansafe and one thing we have been able to do is disagree without putting anyone down. Okay I'm rambling and I don't know half of what I've said. But I've seen the fall of the American dream. And I now know it was just smokescreen so the fat cats could get richer.
  18. otisanddinga

    otisanddinga LoanSafe Member


    what's wrong with having money? As long as you did it legally, that's what America and Capitalism is all about. I'm not talking about the banks but to tax the wealthy is a "double-edge sword". The wealthy create the jobs, notice we are currently losing hundreds of thousands daily under Obama's stimulus. They will move their businesses elsewhere like they're currently. They have the means to do so. Unfortunately, the world is not equal. Some people work harder and want options some don't. Is is fair for someone to pay for someone else because they have no ambition? Life isn't always fair and will never be. As far as the banks, they can rot. They did it illegally and at our expense. Thanks for your imput!
  19. Riley18

    Riley18 LoanSafe Member

    There is nothing wrong with having money. What does need to change is a tax structure where ordinary working people pay a greater percentage of income in taxes than a rich person. I do not buy the idea of not taxing rich people equals jobs because they had close to 8 years of tax bliss and all we got was unemployment. The rich got greedier and lazier and we got poorer. The jobs were gone long before President Obama. I suppose all the unemployed have no ambition? One example of how unfair our tax policy currently is would be that any income over $106,000 a year is not taxed for Social Security. That tax is vital for Americans and is a virtual lifeline for many senior citizens.
  20. caldwell02

    caldwell02 LoanSafe Member

    otis - WTF. Work Hard? WORK HARD?????? do you really think I don't work hard. Well FU. I've worked my ass off all my life. You piss me off. Where the hell do you come from with that attitude? Work Hard. Damn it. You have to change that paradigm mister or ms or whatever you are or get the **** out of here. If that's your deal then what the hell are you doing on this forum. Just leave your house and give it to your fat *** lender.

    Oh - that is not what you want? Do you want the lender to see your situation differently? Why should they? They "work harder" than you do. They "deserve" to have your money and your home back.

    I'm sorry to rant and I'm sorry this is mean but Otis this hit me right square in the middle and you and I are on opposite sides. About as far opposite as anyone can get right now.

Share This Page



"Hello Moe, I just wanted to tell you, your website has saved my life (literally), I stumbled on your site in the middle of losing my home, I was able to network with people going through the same thing as I am. I didn't feel alone anymore, I have tried to give back and counsel those that haven't walked in my shoes yet. We hear so much about what is wrong with America, I just wanted you to know, you are whats "right" with America."

Nina Mitchell
Loansafe & MoeSeo Inc. © 2014 | LoanSafe.org is not a bank, lender, mortgage broker, law firm or affiliated with the US Government. Privacy Policy