Word to the unwise.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!
- Thread starter Anti
- Start date
- Status
One Percenters Who Fight For The 99 Percent
By Bruce Watson
AOL Daily Finance
Occupy Wall Street is slowing down a bit as winter sets in, but the conversation it inspired is still gaining momentum. Millions of Americans who once viewed themselves in general terms like "middle class," "struggling" or "comfortable" now see the world more sharply divided into two groups: the 99 percent and the 1 percent.
But even in the middle of the protests, the division isn't as stark as one might think. From the beginning, some of Occupy Wall Street's strongest supporters have come from America's richest families. Who are these wealthy few who have crossed the boundary, and what are they doing to help the other 99 percent?
Among the first 1 percent rebels was Robert S. Halper, a former vice chairman of the New York Mercantile Exchange -- and an early enabler of Occupy Wall Street. A friend of OWS mastermind Kalle Lasn, Halper was one of the first to hear about the decision to take over Zuccotti Park. When Lasn unveiled his plans, Halper gave him $20,000 to set things in motion. But while Halper was quick to pull out his checkbook, he chose to remain mostly on the outside of the occupation, only visiting occasionally to see what his money had helped ignite. By comparison, some 1 percent rebels have dived in to work more closely with the 99 percent.
Afraid and Isolated
Critics of the 1 percent tend to paint the wealthy as arrogant and self-centered, convinced that they deserve their wealth, and blind to their own good luck and the societal support that allowed them to prosper. But Chuck Collins, director of the Institute for Policy Studies' Program on Inequality and the Common Good, suggests that the relationship between rich people and their money isn't quite so clear-cut.
"Sure, some buy into the idea of wealth creation and claim that they are completely responsible for their money," says Collins, "but most realize that their wealth has to do with the society that we live in." Once they reach that conclusion, he argues, it often informs their decisions. "Many people in the 1 percent for one reason or another have realized that the economy should not be organized to keep funneling wealth to the top."
For Collins, the relationship between the 1 percent and the rest of the country isn't theoretical. A great-grandson of Oscar Meyer, he is an heir to the family's extensive meatpacking fortune. He argues, however, that his wealth doesn't shield him from economic inequity. "As a parent, do I want my child to grow up in an apartheid society? Do I want to live in Brazil, where I have to surround my family with bodyguards as we take armored cars from one rich enclave to another? That's kind of where we've been heading for the last 30 years. Do this for another 20 years and you've got another Sao Paolo."
Karen Pittelman (pictured above, and right, with Elspeth Gilmore), a philanthropist and author of Classified: How to Stop Hiding Your Privilege and Work for Social Change, echoes this sense of exclusion: "Class privilege often comes with a lot of isolation and fear, and that can be passed down through the generations along with an inheritance." Part of the problem, she argues, lies in upper-class discomfort about the benefits they enjoy. "Being open and honest about how so much is rigged in our favor is a threat to the way things run. That stuff is supposed to stay quiet, behind the scenes. That's the real reason why people who grow up with class privilege are taught never to talk about money."
The Broader Community
Part of the solution, Collins claims, is for rich people to recognize that wealth cannot shelter them indefinitely. "We don't live on islands. Well--some of us do," he says with a laugh. "But most of us live in communities where we can see the results of 30 to 40 years of public policy that have increased inequality."
Jessie Spector (right), the program director at Resource Generation, a organizing group for young philanthropists, argues that the best tool for developing a more equitable society is tax reform. "I am focused on taxation as one key tactic for creating economic justice. It's the best system we have on a scale large enough to create a more equitable society." The burden, she notes, rests on the rich: "We need to pay our fair share. The wealthy need to pay much more if we hope to maintain opportunities for everyone in our society."
Collins echoes the idea that higher tax rates broadly benefit society. "In the 1950s and 1960s, we taxed ourselves at a high level and used the money to pay for public investments that made our generation's prosperity possible. Now, however, we're stripping those investments in order to benefit a very small portion of the populace. Are we leaving anything for the next generation?" In addition to hollowing out the middle class and crucifying the lower class, Collins argues, this sort of thinking is devastating for the upper classes. "We also need to think about the health of the economy. Too much inequality undermines the basis of prosperity."
hello?
Helping Others Find a Voice
Lobbying for tax reform isn't the only way that wealthy people can help their communities. Spector has worked with Occupy Wall Street, and has used a large part of her inheritance to help fund small grass-roots organizations: "My priorities have been to give money to work led by the people who are most directly affected by injustice. I work with Poor Magazine, a media group that is organized around economic injustice."
When Karen Pittelman protested at Occupy Wall Street, she carried a sign that poked fun at her own wealth: "Another Trust Fund Baby for the Radical Redistribution of Wealth. She stresses that philanthropy isn't just about giving away money; it's also about giving away power.
With part of her inheritance, she endowed the Chahara Foundation, which funded grass roots groups in Boston that were run by and for low-income women of color. She quickly learned, however, that the privilege that she was taught to take for granted could get in the way of her own philanthropy.
"Part of the thing about being raised with class privilege is that you are always taught that you know best, that you have the solution to everything," she says. "After the foundation's first round of giving, it was so clear to me that, had I been making the decisions, I never would have even known about so many of these amazing, small, grassroots groups they were supporting because I wasn't from those communities. The women making the grant decisions had been working as activists in their communities their whole lives, so they knew what was going on in a way I never would."
Giving away power not only taught Pittelman about her own expectations, but also about her ability to change the world. Looking back, she says: "When you have a lot of resources and are willing to put them behind radical causes, it can make some people nervous."
By Bruce Watson
AOL Daily Finance
Occupy Wall Street is slowing down a bit as winter sets in, but the conversation it inspired is still gaining momentum. Millions of Americans who once viewed themselves in general terms like "middle class," "struggling" or "comfortable" now see the world more sharply divided into two groups: the 99 percent and the 1 percent.
But even in the middle of the protests, the division isn't as stark as one might think. From the beginning, some of Occupy Wall Street's strongest supporters have come from America's richest families. Who are these wealthy few who have crossed the boundary, and what are they doing to help the other 99 percent?
Among the first 1 percent rebels was Robert S. Halper, a former vice chairman of the New York Mercantile Exchange -- and an early enabler of Occupy Wall Street. A friend of OWS mastermind Kalle Lasn, Halper was one of the first to hear about the decision to take over Zuccotti Park. When Lasn unveiled his plans, Halper gave him $20,000 to set things in motion. But while Halper was quick to pull out his checkbook, he chose to remain mostly on the outside of the occupation, only visiting occasionally to see what his money had helped ignite. By comparison, some 1 percent rebels have dived in to work more closely with the 99 percent.
Afraid and Isolated
Critics of the 1 percent tend to paint the wealthy as arrogant and self-centered, convinced that they deserve their wealth, and blind to their own good luck and the societal support that allowed them to prosper. But Chuck Collins, director of the Institute for Policy Studies' Program on Inequality and the Common Good, suggests that the relationship between rich people and their money isn't quite so clear-cut.
"Sure, some buy into the idea of wealth creation and claim that they are completely responsible for their money," says Collins, "but most realize that their wealth has to do with the society that we live in." Once they reach that conclusion, he argues, it often informs their decisions. "Many people in the 1 percent for one reason or another have realized that the economy should not be organized to keep funneling wealth to the top."
For Collins, the relationship between the 1 percent and the rest of the country isn't theoretical. A great-grandson of Oscar Meyer, he is an heir to the family's extensive meatpacking fortune. He argues, however, that his wealth doesn't shield him from economic inequity. "As a parent, do I want my child to grow up in an apartheid society? Do I want to live in Brazil, where I have to surround my family with bodyguards as we take armored cars from one rich enclave to another? That's kind of where we've been heading for the last 30 years. Do this for another 20 years and you've got another Sao Paolo."
Karen Pittelman (pictured above, and right, with Elspeth Gilmore), a philanthropist and author of Classified: How to Stop Hiding Your Privilege and Work for Social Change, echoes this sense of exclusion: "Class privilege often comes with a lot of isolation and fear, and that can be passed down through the generations along with an inheritance." Part of the problem, she argues, lies in upper-class discomfort about the benefits they enjoy. "Being open and honest about how so much is rigged in our favor is a threat to the way things run. That stuff is supposed to stay quiet, behind the scenes. That's the real reason why people who grow up with class privilege are taught never to talk about money."
The Broader Community
Part of the solution, Collins claims, is for rich people to recognize that wealth cannot shelter them indefinitely. "We don't live on islands. Well--some of us do," he says with a laugh. "But most of us live in communities where we can see the results of 30 to 40 years of public policy that have increased inequality."
Jessie Spector (right), the program director at Resource Generation, a organizing group for young philanthropists, argues that the best tool for developing a more equitable society is tax reform. "I am focused on taxation as one key tactic for creating economic justice. It's the best system we have on a scale large enough to create a more equitable society." The burden, she notes, rests on the rich: "We need to pay our fair share. The wealthy need to pay much more if we hope to maintain opportunities for everyone in our society."
Collins echoes the idea that higher tax rates broadly benefit society. "In the 1950s and 1960s, we taxed ourselves at a high level and used the money to pay for public investments that made our generation's prosperity possible. Now, however, we're stripping those investments in order to benefit a very small portion of the populace. Are we leaving anything for the next generation?" In addition to hollowing out the middle class and crucifying the lower class, Collins argues, this sort of thinking is devastating for the upper classes. "We also need to think about the health of the economy. Too much inequality undermines the basis of prosperity."
hello? Helping Others Find a Voice
Lobbying for tax reform isn't the only way that wealthy people can help their communities. Spector has worked with Occupy Wall Street, and has used a large part of her inheritance to help fund small grass-roots organizations: "My priorities have been to give money to work led by the people who are most directly affected by injustice. I work with Poor Magazine, a media group that is organized around economic injustice."
When Karen Pittelman protested at Occupy Wall Street, she carried a sign that poked fun at her own wealth: "Another Trust Fund Baby for the Radical Redistribution of Wealth. She stresses that philanthropy isn't just about giving away money; it's also about giving away power.
With part of her inheritance, she endowed the Chahara Foundation, which funded grass roots groups in Boston that were run by and for low-income women of color. She quickly learned, however, that the privilege that she was taught to take for granted could get in the way of her own philanthropy.
"Part of the thing about being raised with class privilege is that you are always taught that you know best, that you have the solution to everything," she says. "After the foundation's first round of giving, it was so clear to me that, had I been making the decisions, I never would have even known about so many of these amazing, small, grassroots groups they were supporting because I wasn't from those communities. The women making the grant decisions had been working as activists in their communities their whole lives, so they knew what was going on in a way I never would."
Giving away power not only taught Pittelman about her own expectations, but also about her ability to change the world. Looking back, she says: "When you have a lot of resources and are willing to put them behind radical causes, it can make some people nervous."
still waitin for that gross Income for the rich 5%..anyone??
rootfingers
Active member
I'm still waiting for some one to finish my calc homework but I failed that class years ago. I hate to sound cynical but it is starting to seem that no one wants to do my homework.
We need an entire armada of cargo containers full of clues to dock and begin distribution in the states..... nothing on the horizon though. *sigh*
Here's some clues for your containers.
To score a point you have to make one
Top down economics shrinks economies
Rhetoric is rhetoric
Sean Hannity at 9
To score a point you have to make one
Top down economics shrinks economies
Rhetoric is rhetoric
Sean Hannity at 9
Thanks for the reminder. Wait, that's Lawrence, one of my favs. I flip between Maddow and Hannity to get the rather stark OWS perspectives. I'd watch Billo but he has Chris Matthews disease, won't stop talking. I watch these folks for the guests. The best ones are more informative than their hosts. Obviously I get the somewhat choir versions but that's the legacy of no fairness doctrine.
you do realize the big O put the nail in that coffin?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/fairness-doctrine-demise-_b_935939.html
G
greenmatter
ya know i thought i was responding to SG's post about the english language being hijacked with what i thought was a relevant example of the english language being hijacked. i guess i should read between every line before i push the return button next time ...... thanks for explaining whatever it was i did not know i was asking
I gathered you addressed someone else. I took the opportunity to expand on what you appeared to be considering. I might have missed your impulses but your response doesn't appear to indicate.
I didn't seek to answer questions you didn't ask. I took your post as more superficial observations. You might benefit from knowing a bit more w/o having to ask.
I hope you'll excuse, I'm getting kinda old. It's not very often I encounter folks who appear more content pondering the line than considerations of.
The problem I try to avoid is getting journalistic integrity and the opinions I disagree all mixed up.
Pouring peas and carrots into the same plate doesn't homogenize into tripe. One can still easily distinguish news from commentary. But we have folks who puree peas and carrots in a blender. We get slogans like, "We report you decide."
A quick look at the slogan suggests hypocrisy. How does one "decide" current events? They can ignore current events but they can't opine current events don't happen. You can't tell where the news and opinion come together when facts aren't accurate. The slogan itself is a reflection of the paradox.
Last edited:
keep juggling...
I'll borrow your link and demonstrate your fractured reasoning. Your conclusion has a D in it, even if the equation doesn't.
No clarification necessary.
Doesn't say law, rule, etc. It specifically says literature. I'll go squeeze all yer toothpaste out of the tube. Now, you try to put it back in. Might be more trouble than it's worth. Might be a Guantanamo moment where the president has to settle for something he doesn't want because the opposition won't cooperate with the alternative.
First we'd have to determine if if means Obama is against the fairness doctrine itself or Regan's abolition of.
The external link in the comment might denote this apparent omission by the reporter. I invite you to investigate further.
This specifically says the FCC called for the removal of language from it's books. And since this language was previously referenced as 'literature' we don't yet know the weight of the word, nor the significance it has to your conclusion. If any at all.
By Copps being a stalwart supporter of public interest, this suggests your idea that the 'executor executes' like a corporate CEO (even in a government system of checks and balances i.e. separation of powers) misses something considerable.
However, you'd have to click the external link to see if Copps attributes the 'dead letter' aspect to Obama.
A look at the BFA suggests Pence is confused. He says he wants fairness but the BFA seeks to remove the 1934 law that mandates broadcasting to include opposing views on matters of public importance. Apparently Pence wants his idea of a Fairness Doctrine but he doesn't want the FCC telling him what it means or mitigating whether he's in compliance.
All the above suggests there are real opponents of the FD (in addition to the imaginary ones.)
In other words, Rushbo Limbard was slinging 45s for a living and now we have his great pontification. Somehow I don't get the feeling that Obama would root for the chaos perpetuated by blowhards.
Yeah that's it, no real conversation. I recon that's why Obama is taking his conversation to the public. Obama doesn't sound like a guy who would support 90% of baloney commentary masquerading as relevant.
The article is much longer and significantly demonstrates the pros and cons of the FD. But what the article doesn't substantiate is that Obama has the significance you're suggesting. Maybe the reporter leaves it up to you to decide things, free and clear of his article. Logic might suggest not referencing what probably hasn't been read and certainly isn't understood.
This is why I've suggested you occasionally take the opportunity to show you understand what you suggest lies within. You can point to the article but not your relevance when your conclusions aren't substantiated.
Whenever you fill out your next job application and come to the part about reasoning and logic skills, take my advice. Move on to the next part.
ohh i just picked the guff post one for you...
everyone (but you apparently) understands O drove the final nail but LMGTFY
http://gillreport.com/2011/08/strangely-pres-obama-kill-off-the-fairness-doctrine/#.TtmQLIT2SSo
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-v...83-outdated-rules-including-fairness-doctrine
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/obama-opposes-fairness-do_n_167995.html
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/02/19/obama-makes-it-clear-no-fairness-doctrine/
http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/23/the-death-of-the-fairness-doctrine/
not gonna argue with your partisan idiocy...
feel free to spin 'er any way you like but the big O drove 'yer nail
everyone (but you apparently) understands O drove the final nail but LMGTFY
http://gillreport.com/2011/08/strangely-pres-obama-kill-off-the-fairness-doctrine/#.TtmQLIT2SSo
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-v...83-outdated-rules-including-fairness-doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/obama-opposes-fairness-do_n_167995.html
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/02/19/obama-makes-it-clear-no-fairness-doctrine/
http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/23/the-death-of-the-fairness-doctrine/
not gonna argue with your partisan idiocy...
feel free to spin 'er any way you like but the big O drove 'yer nail
as opposed to tossing
too cute to troll - I know better
too cute to troll - I know better
Direct rebuttal of your link (masquerading as an argument) received nothing but more hay stacks. Me thinks you can't find the straw that backs
Yet unusual reasoning suggests the grease spot received coffin and nail from the president. Me thinks yer reasoning is a bit greasy.
This is a perfect example why the FD shouldn't have been eliminated. Instead of getting two sides of an issue from a reputable source, we get what folks want others to see.
Just because there are important matters that need both sides presented to the public, this is a situation of being culpable or not. This isn't a, "we report, you decide" opportunity here.
And a very good reason to use figurative language your can argue better than the fact Obama didn't sign any legislation nor direct anyone to act.
You're driving the nail in yer head to spite the coffin.
too cute to troll - I know better
ohh i just picked the guff post one for you...
everyone (but you apparently) understands O drove the final nail but LMGTFY
http://gillreport.com/2011/08/strangely-pres-obama-kill-off-the-fairness-doctrine/#.TtmQLIT2SSo
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-v...83-outdated-rules-including-fairness-doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/obama-opposes-fairness-do_n_167995.html
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/02/19/obama-makes-it-clear-no-fairness-doctrine/
http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/23/the-death-of-the-fairness-doctrine/
not gonna argue with your partisan idiocy...
feel free to spin 'er any way you like but the big O drove 'yer nail
Direct rebuttal of your link (masquerading as an argument) received nothing but more hay stacks. Me thinks you can't find the straw that backs
Obama might not piss on your burning carcass but that doesn't mean he legislated your demise. Especially when the match was struck in 1987 and you're nothing but a grease spot now.
Yet unusual reasoning suggests the grease spot received coffin and nail from the president. Me thinks yer reasoning is a bit greasy.
This is a perfect example why the FD shouldn't have been eliminated. Instead of getting two sides of an issue from a reputable source, we get what folks want others to see.
Just because there are important matters that need both sides presented to the public, this is a situation of being culpable or not. This isn't a, "we report, you decide" opportunity here.
And a very good reason to use figurative language your can argue better than the fact Obama didn't sign any legislation nor direct anyone to act.
You're driving the nail in yer head to spite the coffin.
Last edited:
- Status
