Now this is a nice story we can hopefully all agree on. Donald Trump will buy Ed McMahon's house (which is in foreclosure) and let Ed continue to live there. I have been worried about this actually. I agree with Trump: Ed McMahon was the guy you saw on TV every night along with Johnny Carson and you hate to see him thrown out of his home. Of course, the Donald will profit in the end but this really bails out McMahon.
Quote
Donald Trump to buy Ed McMahon's house
(http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-08/41619590.jpg)
McMahon had slashed the price on his Beverly Hills house by $1.9 million, to $4.6 million.
Trump will allow McMahon, who was facing foreclosure, to continue living in the home.
By Ann Brenoff, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
4:07 PM PDT, August 14, 2008
It's "The Donald" to the rescue.
Mega-developer and TV personality Donald Trump has agreed to buy Ed McMahon's Beverly Hills house for an undisclosed amount and allow McMahon to continue living in it. Details of the deal are still being ironed out.
"I don't know the man, but I grew up watching him on TV," Trump said in an exclusive interview with The Times.
McMahon, 85, was facing foreclosure within two weeks on his Beverly Hills home of 18 years. The aging television icon, who was Johnny Carson's sidekick for three decades, defaulted on $4.8 million in mortgage loans with Countrywide Financial Corp. He said in interviews that he was unable to work because of a neck injury that occurred about 18 months ago.
Trump said he stepped in because helping McMahon "would be an honor." His plan is to buy the home from the lender and lease it back to McMahon.
"When I was at the Wharton School of Business," Trump said, "I'd watch him every night. How could this happen?"
The deal with Trump was cemented this past weekend when McMahon's listing agent, Alex Davis of Hilton & Hyland in Beverly Hills, flew to New York to make a personal appeal to Trump. Davis declined comment.
The six-bedroom, five-bathroom house had been on the market for about two years. At one point, it was listed at more than $7 million but dropped in increments, winding up this weekend at $4.6 million. McMahon purchased the house in 1990 for $2.6 million, according to public records.
Lenders had set a deadline of two weeks for another buyer to be found.
http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/la-hmw-hotpropmcmahon14-2008aug14,0,6229599.story
lesson of the story, regardless how reckless you are with your millions of dollars you've earned over the years, its always best to know someone richer. I'm sorry but Ed Mcmahon gets no sympathy from me.
Quote from: civil42806 on August 15, 2008, 07:32:22 AM
lesson of the story, regardless how reckless you are with your millions of dollars you've earned over the years, its always best to know someone richer. I'm sorry but Ed Mcmahon gets no sympathy from me.
Have you seen our national debt lately?
what in the world does the national debt have to do with ed Mcmahon?
Awe, the rich helping the rich, so heartwarming.
Quote from: The Compound on August 15, 2008, 09:46:18 AM
Awe, the rich helping the rich, so heartwarming.
I dunno. I think its one person doing something for another. What's being rich got to do with it?
Quote from: Doctor_K on August 15, 2008, 09:49:04 AM
Quote from: The Compound on August 15, 2008, 09:46:18 AM
Awe, the rich helping the rich, so heartwarming.
I dunno. I think its one person doing something for another. What's being rich got to do with it?
What about the other thousands of americans losing their homes every day? Is he helping them as well with his endless supply of money? Hardly.
Quote from: The Compound on August 15, 2008, 09:59:11 AM
Quote from: Doctor_K on August 15, 2008, 09:49:04 AM
Quote from: The Compound on August 15, 2008, 09:46:18 AM
Awe, the rich helping the rich, so heartwarming.
I dunno. I think its one person doing something for another. What's being rich got to do with it?
What about the other thousands of americans losing their homes every day? Is he helping them as well with his endless supply of money? Hardly.
well, that's because the thousands of other americans in foreclosure never said "HEY-OHHHHHHHHHH!" and "YES!"
::searches for youtube clip::
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 12:29:29 AM
Now this is a nice story we can hopefully all agree on.
Sorry, guy, but one guy's irresponsibility being taken care of by one of the greediest, most disguting people on the planet-- not so much.
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 12:29:29 AM
I have been worried about this actually.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA-- you have been worried about this? are you KIDDING ME? i can easily rattle off 100 more important and concerning things one could spend his time worrying about. A celebrity who loses his home ain't one of 'em. Oh, wait, yeah, you know, all the people losing their jobs and homes, people dying in stupid wars, the possible outbreak of another war-- screw 'em, Ed McMahon might lose his home, OH NO!!!! what shall we do?!?!
That this was actually posted in "news" is an insult to the word "news".
Apparently I spoke too soon when I said that "we can hopefully all agree on" this being a good thing. I should have known that the envious communists on the site would chime in with their hatred. Thanks for making yourselves look bad. ;)
I think it may be a generational issue. Today celebrities are moronic and more screwed up than most. McMahon was of a different breed of celebrity, one actually worth tuning in to. I feel like it is a good thing that Trump is doing this for him. While this isn't the most important news I'll read today, it is great to see that someone is helping an American icon who has fallen on hard times.
Agreed Captain. McMahon is a good guy who made some bad financial moves. He is now 85 years old and a veteran also and I would hate to see him lose his home to foreclosure (or anyone else for that matter).
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 14, 2008, 11:32:11 PM
Locking them up is the best solution. Their problem is they are living on the street due to insanity or criminal laziness. Locking them up in a secure treatment facility allows society to treat their illness. If they are just bums, a few stints in the can might change their mind as to begging and bothering people.
QuoteBeing homeless is not considered a criminal enterprise.
It is by me and it was considered a criminal offense historically. You just dont know the history because you have not been taught it in your government school.
LOL :P
Quote from: Doctor_K on August 15, 2008, 09:49:04 AM
Quote from: The Compound on August 15, 2008, 09:46:18 AM
Awe, the rich helping the rich, so heartwarming.
I dunno. I think its one person doing something for another. What's being rich got to do with it?
go to Haitia or Senegal or western China or Myanmar or Krgystan. look at how the people live there. and then think of how far that "rescue" would've gone - how many people it would've helped. you would then understand the sentiment behind the comment.
Quote from: Lunican on August 15, 2008, 12:01:04 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 14, 2008, 11:32:11 PM
Locking them up is the best solution. Their problem is they are living on the street due to insanity or criminal laziness. Locking them up in a secure treatment facility allows society to treat their illness. If they are just bums, a few stints in the can might change their mind as to begging and bothering people.
QuoteBeing homeless is not considered a criminal enterprise.
It is by me and it was considered a criminal offense historically. You just dont know the history because you have not been taught it in your government school.
So you think McMahon (an 85 year old WW2 and Korean War veteran and well known celebrity) is akin to a bum on the street? Interesting "logic", lunican.
Quote from: Driven1 on August 15, 2008, 12:54:14 PM
Quote from: Doctor_K on August 15, 2008, 09:49:04 AM
Quote from: The Compound on August 15, 2008, 09:46:18 AM
Awe, the rich helping the rich, so heartwarming.
I dunno. I think its one person doing something for another. What's being rich got to do with it?
go to Haitia or Senegal or western China or Myanmar or Krgystan. look at how the people live there. and then think of how far that "rescue" would've gone - how many people it would've helped. you would then understand the sentiment behind the comment.
That is apples and oranges. In those areas, you have societal malfunction causing poverty. In McMahon's case, an old but well liked man made a bad move. Trump gets the appreciation, McMahon gets to stay at home. Everyone wins. Giving that money to Haiti or Myanmar would not change things. They need to restructure their societies to be successful.
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 04:14:48 PM
So you think McMahon (an 85 year old WW2 and Korean War veteran and well known celebrity) is akin to a bum on the street? Interesting "logic", lunican.
If Trump hadn't saved him you would have been forced to throw him in GitmoGatorLand to teach him a lesson.
Sarcasm is not your best quality, lunican. ;)
I always like charity where you can make a profit. We should all be so lucky to find something that helps someone and helps ourselves.
We all profit from this I think he was going to have to bring back Star Search.
I can see where people, who already hate Trump (I actually love the guy and enjoy his books, but he can be an asshole to women LoL), would get angry at him helping another rich guy. But let's face it, so many uneducated people, and sometimes educated, and people who arent rich often hate rich people for all the money they have. That is why the uneducated and poor are often still stuck in their situation, because they gripe all the time, remain dependent on the system, and do not focus on getting to that point. Fact, it is rich people who basically support this country through taxes, it is rich people who donate their money to charities moreso than others because they simply have more money, it is rich people who contribute to society by funding projects and art galleries and hospital wings, it is rich people who spend more money not on themselves and pay more taxes than any other group of people, and they really do not have to give up their money to anything besides taxes. Hate rich people all you want, but look around at all the things in our lives that benefit us on a daily basis or just enrich our lives and ask yourself, where would all this be without all the stinking rich people. Plus without rich people, who would we look to to strive to get there some day.
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 04:17:12 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on August 15, 2008, 12:54:14 PM
go to Haitia or Senegal or western China or Myanmar or Krgystan. look at how the people live there. and then think of how far that "rescue" would've gone - how many people it would've helped. you would then understand the sentiment behind the comment.
That is apples and oranges. In those areas, you have societal malfunction causing poverty. In McMahon's case, an old but well liked man made a bad move. Trump gets the appreciation, McMahon gets to stay at home. Everyone wins. Giving that money to Haiti or Myanmar would not change things. They need to restructure their societies to be successful.
you're wrong here. there are charitable organizations that everyday make a very tangible difference in the lives of the people of these countries. without these orgs, many, many more people would die and/or go hungry every day. helping people is not always about "changing things" or improving their society. my view on helping people is giving them something to drink or something to eat or a place to live - even when they have the misfortune of being born in a society that needs to be restructured. again, i stand by my conviction that MANY more people could've been helped (fed, watered, sheltered) if Trump had given the money to a reputable charity overseas. ("Whatever you do for the least of these my brothers, you do it to me." Matthew 25:40) i'm not so sure i can look at Ed McMahon and compare him to starving child in Sudan and say that Ed is the "least of these".
btw, Trump "get[ting] the appreciation" - that is "winning"? obtaining man's approval?
I'm sure Trump has donated plenty to charity, although he is a democrat and statistically speaking republicans donate quite a bit more than democrats per capita, look it up people before you criticize that statement beause it is a proven fact ;D Anyway, what if Trump didnt want to donate any of his money on his own because a HUGE chunk of it goes to federal taxes and a large chunk of that goes to welfare, and that is "helping" people...his choice, not yours, if you are so into charity, make a billion dollars and donate it all to Haiti or Botswana or some country :D
Quote from: simms3 on August 16, 2008, 10:17:44 AM
his choice, not yours, if you are so into charity, make a billion dollars and donate it all to Haiti or Botswana or some country :D
no one said it was anyone's choice EXCEPT his. or did i miss where someone said it was their choice? i think several of us were just criticizing HIS choice. which we are perfectly free to do.
Quote from: Driven1 on August 16, 2008, 10:05:56 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on August 15, 2008, 04:17:12 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on August 15, 2008, 12:54:14 PM
go to Haitia or Senegal or western China or Myanmar or Krgystan. look at how the people live there. and then think of how far that "rescue" would've gone - how many people it would've helped. you would then understand the sentiment behind the comment.
That is apples and oranges. In those areas, you have societal malfunction causing poverty. In McMahon's case, an old but well liked man made a bad move. Trump gets the appreciation, McMahon gets to stay at home. Everyone wins. Giving that money to Haiti or Myanmar would not change things. They need to restructure their societies to be successful.
you're wrong here. there are charitable organizations that everyday make a very tangible difference in the lives of the people of these countries. without these orgs, many, many more people would die and/or go hungry every day. helping people is not always about "changing things" or improving their society. my view on helping people is giving them something to drink or something to eat or a place to live - even when they have the misfortune of being born in a society that needs to be restructured. again, i stand by my conviction that MANY more people could've been helped (fed, watered, sheltered) if Trump had given the money to a reputable charity overseas. ("Whatever you do for the least of these my brothers, you do it to me." Matthew 25:40) i'm not so sure i can look at Ed McMahon and compare him to starving child in Sudan and say that Ed is the "least of these".
btw, Trump "get[ting] the appreciation" - that is "winning"? obtaining man's approval?
I didnt mean to say that Trump did this and therefore he should not also give to charity. I meant to say that McMahon is an institution who was helped out by Trump to stay in his home. Charity is also good. Charity in the wrong form does not lift people out of poverty however. It really is as simple as that. I had no idea the initial post would lead to controversy. :)