A thread about Bill Maher: The Good, The Bad, and The UGLY!

Lerxst1992

static111 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

Please tell me how to buy a 400,000 house for  168,000.

Also with all your fuzzy math. I think you are missing the big picture that 410,000 is a hell of an entry point for starter homes.  

I'm also confused if you are saying a 410,000 starter house today is cheaper than a 75-90k starter home from 1985? Or are you comparing a 410,000 2025 starter home to a 410,000 1985 mansion?

Interest rates are double 40 years ago than they are today, based on that article they posted. After accounting for interest, today’s 420k home actually costs $156k when calculating the mortgage savings present value on the lower rates today. The next step is to discount $156k for inflation, which I’ll hold off on for now.

…

” If the interest rate is halved, it becomes significantly cheaper to buy a house with a mortgage because the total amount of interest you pay over the life of the loan is drastically reduced…

Over a long period, like a 30-year mortgage, even a small difference in the interest rate compounds into hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings.

• The Power of Compounding: Interest is calculated on the remaining principal (the money you still owe). At a high interest rate, you pay more interest, which keeps your principal balance higher for longer, which in turn means the next month's interest is also high. This effect is powerful. When the rate is halved, this cycle is broken, and you pay off the principal much faster relative to the interest.

• Total Cost Comparison (from your previous calculation):

• High Rate (\bm{12.4\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$1,586,713.41}

• Lower Rate (\bm{6.8\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$976,323.16}

• The difference in the total amount you pay is over \bm{\$610,000}—more than the original loan amount!

3. Lower Effective Cost of the Home

While the actual selling price of the home remains the same (the principal of \bm{\$416,000}), the total cost to you as a borrower is what truly defines the expense. A lower interest rate means you spend less money overall to own the asset.

• It's an Equity Shift: With a lower rate, more of each initial payment goes toward building equity (paying down the principal), and less goes to the lender as interest (the cost of borrowing). This means you own more of the house sooner.

again, you are doing the same thing in your position as you did with the "invest and you'll have x in 40 years". interest rates do little to help someone with START UP COSTS. Down payments are a percentage of the cost of the home NOW, not later. 5% of the cost of a home now is a lot more when considering disparity in income to cost of home. No one is saying equity isn't better or interest rates aren't better. 

YOUR ADULTS WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD A ONE TIME PAYMENT OF 5% OF 400,000 (AT MINIMUM) BY CANCELLING NETFLIX AND COFFEES FOR A FEW YEARS. <------THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT YOU DISPUTED BEFORE YOU MOVED IT TO HOW MUCH PEOPLE SAVE OVER 40 YEARS. 

This math is crazy. Sorry but I am paying at least 410,000 for a 410,000 house.  Interest rates from 40 years ago have nothing to do with anything.  Not to mention what 410,000 buys you in 1985 vs today.  If I tried to give someone 168k for a house they are trying to sell for 410k no one is letting that sale go through.

Imagine if Dems tried to win elections by saying a 410k house only costs 168k and the housing market isnt as bad as you think, your eyes and your bank account are lying to you. Oh and while you are at it, disregard that 410k today gets you less than your dead beat parents bought for 65k. Hey millennials you've just been owned. If that won't bring some dem votes I don't know what will.

Lower interest rates today vs 40 years ago have nothing to do with what people pay for the cost of a home.

im not sure where this forum exists, but it’s certainly not reality.

Lerxst1992

HughFreakingDillon said:

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

Please tell me how to buy a 400,000 house for  168,000.

Also with all your fuzzy math. I think you are missing the big picture that 410,000 is a hell of an entry point for starter homes.  

I'm also confused if you are saying a 410,000 starter house today is cheaper than a 75-90k starter home from 1985? Or are you comparing a 410,000 2025 starter home to a 410,000 1985 mansion?

Interest rates are double 40 years ago than they are today, based on that article they posted. After accounting for interest, today’s 420k home actually costs $156k when calculating the mortgage savings present value on the lower rates today. The next step is to discount $156k for inflation, which I’ll hold off on for now.

…

” If the interest rate is halved, it becomes significantly cheaper to buy a house with a mortgage because the total amount of interest you pay over the life of the loan is drastically reduced…

Over a long period, like a 30-year mortgage, even a small difference in the interest rate compounds into hundreds of thousands of dollars in savings.

• The Power of Compounding: Interest is calculated on the remaining principal (the money you still owe). At a high interest rate, you pay more interest, which keeps your principal balance higher for longer, which in turn means the next month's interest is also high. This effect is powerful. When the rate is halved, this cycle is broken, and you pay off the principal much faster relative to the interest.

• Total Cost Comparison (from your previous calculation):

• High Rate (\bm{12.4\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$1,586,713.41}

• Lower Rate (\bm{6.8\%}): Total cost was \bm{\$976,323.16}

• The difference in the total amount you pay is over \bm{\$610,000}—more than the original loan amount!

3. Lower Effective Cost of the Home

While the actual selling price of the home remains the same (the principal of \bm{\$416,000}), the total cost to you as a borrower is what truly defines the expense. A lower interest rate means you spend less money overall to own the asset.

• It's an Equity Shift: With a lower rate, more of each initial payment goes toward building equity (paying down the principal), and less goes to the lender as interest (the cost of borrowing). This means you own more of the house sooner.

again, you are doing the same thing in your position as you did with the "invest and you'll have x in 40 years". interest rates do little to help someone with START UP COSTS. Down payments are a percentage of the cost of the home NOW, not later. 5% of the cost of a home now is a lot more when considering disparity in income to cost of home. No one is saying equity isn't better or interest rates aren't better. 

YOUR ADULTS WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD A ONE TIME PAYMENT OF 5% OF 400,000 (AT MINIMUM) BY CANCELLING NETFLIX AND COFFEES FOR A FEW YEARS. <------THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT YOU DISPUTED BEFORE YOU MOVED IT TO HOW MUCH PEOPLE SAVE OVER 40 YEARS. 

The amount of savings from treats like Starbucks and Netflix was $3700 per year in my example

The average stock market return is 11%

if retirement accounts are used, tax benefits could flow annually thousands of dollars more to the individual/couple retirement vehicles increasing net worth (which I am pointing out but not using in my example. This would an additional thousand or two to annual savings and tens of thousands for their equity/net worth after ten years)


after ten years of working and saving / investing people will absolutely have enough money for a down payment and $2 million per working individual within a household for retirement after 40 years. (Not a start up, but after ten years of working)

people can start working in their early twenties and buy a home in their early thirties.

(If you include what mortgage interest rates were (1985-1999 to now)  in what housing costs are to each generation it’s impossible to have any understanding what the true cost of a home is. Your own article brought up this point and you are now arguing against it) 


you can use the above data to run a future value annuity. It’s mathematics . I didn’t invent any of this, it’s how finance works for individuals/couples .  It’s interesting that Matt who I recall knows a lot about this, has either decided to leave completely or ignore this running debate, because when he doesn’t like what I have to say, he comes at me like a hammer. On this, radio silence. Hope he is doing alright despite our significant disagreements of late. 

Halifax2TheMax

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Bill trying to stay relevant by firing up the evangelicals. Even he knows they’re easy marks. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of another media anecdote, eh?

No, Bill Maher, there is no ‘Christian genocide’ in Nigeria

From Boko Haram to herder–farmer clashes, Nigeria’s crises are complex. Simplistic genocide claims fuel propaganda.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/10/2/no-bill-maher-there-is-no-christian-genocide-in-nigeria

Wikipedia disagrees

” Despite the conflict fundamentally being a land-use conflict between farmers and herders across Nigeria's Middle Belt, it has taken on dangerous religious and ethnic dimensions mostly because most of the farmers are Christians of various ethnicities while most of the herders are Muslim Fulani who make up about 90% of the country's pastoralists.[2] Thousands of people have died since the attacks began. Sedentary farming in rural communities are often target of attacks because of their vulnerability. There are fears that the conflict will spread to other West African countries, but that has often been downplayed by governments in the region. Attacks on herders have also led them to retaliating by attacking other communities.[3][4][5]

Since 2022, Genocide Watch has classified the conflicts as a genocide of Christians perpetrated by ethnic Fulani jihadists. The organisation places Nigeria on the stages "Stage 9: Extermination" and "Stage 10: Denial" in the Ten Stages of Genocide model developed by American scholar Gregory Stanton.[6]

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Clearly you didn't read the link I posted but instead turned to wiki, wiki, wiki. Bill is really trying hard to stay relevant.

brianlux

Here's my current thinking on this thread topic:

With all the massive SHIT going on in this country and the world, it seems at least a little odd that this thread keeps gaining so much traction.  (I'm as guilty as the next person.  I'm here, right?)  I don't see how it is that Maher merits this much attention here.

As for Maher and his show, it seems to me that he spends way too much time harping on transgender, binary, and similar issues, and harping on people who spend too much time focusing on transgender and similar issues.

Now wait!  Before you label me "homophobic", notice I did not say those are unimportant issues.  What I do believe is that in today's totally fucked up world, those issues do not bear as much weight and concern for the general populous.  

And I don't say these things as someone who is not familiar with transgender and non-binary issues. I've become a rather reclusive soul with a relatively small circle of people in my life and within that small circle, one person is transgender woman who was born a male, one is a woman who is the wife of the trans gender woman (I was at their wedding), and one is a nonbinary they who was born a woman.  Those people are important to me and I care about their issues, but they are not big issues for me and I don't spend a lot of time focusing on them.  And neither to two of those people themselves.  Only one is very outspoken and highly focused on those gender etc. issues, and if they were more prone to focus on another issue all together, they would be just as extreme about that issue.  Some people just tent to go full bore on their most prioritized issue.

So when you look at the people who actually are transgender or binary or are close to someone who is, and look at everybody else (i.e. heterosexual and homosexual and bisexual people), the former two groups are rather small.  And yet look at how much energy is focused on those issues by progressive and liberal people.  I am not saying those are not important issues.  Of course they are.  But I don't understand why so many people place so high a priority on those issues, especially people (unlike me) who are kind of outside that circle anyway.  

If the world becomes controlled by right wing authoritarians, and the health of the planet degrades to the point where the environment is not suited to human life, and if artificial intelligence were to run rampant and decide humans need to be exterminated (don't laugh, I'm not talking about movies), then transgender and binary etc. issues will be the least of our concerns.  Or we'll all be dead.

Where are the priorities?  

Get_Right

I think that 410K average is a bit skewed by prices in high demand areas. You can find a home for 200K or less, but it will not be near a high priced city or suburb. If your credit is good, have some savings, and have a secure job, you will get a mortgage. And yes, you need a larger down payment than when I bought in 2006. It almost always makes sense to buy rather than rent. But I get it. I prefer to lease cars because the cost is lower and I get  new car every three years.

Lerxst1992

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Bill trying to stay relevant by firing up the evangelicals. Even he knows they’re easy marks. But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of another media anecdote, eh?

No, Bill Maher, there is no ‘Christian genocide’ in Nigeria

From Boko Haram to herder–farmer clashes, Nigeria’s crises are complex. Simplistic genocide claims fuel propaganda.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/10/2/no-bill-maher-there-is-no-christian-genocide-in-nigeria

Wikipedia disagrees

” Despite the conflict fundamentally being a land-use conflict between farmers and herders across Nigeria's Middle Belt, it has taken on dangerous religious and ethnic dimensions mostly because most of the farmers are Christians of various ethnicities while most of the herders are Muslim Fulani who make up about 90% of the country's pastoralists.[2] Thousands of people have died since the attacks began. Sedentary farming in rural communities are often target of attacks because of their vulnerability. There are fears that the conflict will spread to other West African countries, but that has often been downplayed by governments in the region. Attacks on herders have also led them to retaliating by attacking other communities.[3][4][5]

Since 2022, Genocide Watch has classified the conflicts as a genocide of Christians perpetrated by ethnic Fulani jihadists. The organisation places Nigeria on the stages "Stage 9: Extermination" and "Stage 10: Denial" in the Ten Stages of Genocide model developed by American scholar Gregory Stanton.[6]

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Clearly you didn't read the link I posted but instead turned to wiki, wiki, wiki. Bill is really trying hard to stay relevant.

I get it. Mock those you disagree with, reject independent trusted sources and instead rely on stories and anecdotes from biased sources

You’d need to agree with this, adapted from your Al Jazeera article, to begin to have a step towards credibility. Ready for this step?

” Claims of a religious war between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria are simplistic and betray ignorance of the country’s internal dynamics. ”

Claims of a religious war between Muslims and Jews in Levant are simplistic and betray ignorance of the regions dynamics. 

And then there’s ,
“ These mutual accusations show how the term “genocide” has often been invoked without credible evidence, inflaming tensions.In reality, Nigeria’s conflicts are multi-faceted, driven by ethnic rivalries, land disputes and criminality, with religion often secondary.”

Taking that personally? Doubtful. whether religion is secondary in Palestine is open for debate. One could contend Hamas and Palestine in general (yes both are likely true) are against any peace settlement with Israel because they know Israel looks a lot like any North American city hosting a PJ concert, and the last thing they want is for their region to look like that. 

Plus, they have a way to treat women and immigrants that they don’t want to stop. They’d rather be able to keep their land in ruins than it look like cities you’ve visited to see this great band

Ready to disagree with your own sourcing and stop the bigoted daily  genocide attacks ? Also Still waiting for the math from H on the interest rate impact on housing prices. It’s great to use sourcing others are kind enough to provide here!

Lerxst1992

Get_Right said:

I think that 410K average is a bit skewed by prices in high demand areas. You can find a home for 200K or less, but it will not be near a high priced city or suburb. If your credit is good, have some savings, and have a secure job, you will get a mortgage. And yes, you need a larger down payment than when I bought in 2006. It almost always makes sense to buy rather than rent. But I get it. I prefer to lease cars because the cost is lower and I get  new car every three years.

You may be right, while the impact of mortgage interest rates when comparing housing costs 30+ years ago to the last 20 or so years has enormous impact, and it’s something I rarely seen pointed out by media to the younger generations. The left media is too quick to accept things without critical thinking. 

As is cutting back on treats, takeaways and subscriptions and invest the savings in vehicles that regularly outpace housing inflation by 6% over the last few decades. And ignoring generous employer retirement contributions and huge tax savings that can also be invested.

We have a version of free busing and daycare already in retirement and investing vehicles. Assistance in building wealth is right there for the taking, but younger voters in NYC would rather risk large employers leaving the city for new  handouts and huge tax increases.