'Occupy' protesters find allies in ranks of the wealthy

[cal04]

Source: MSNBC

'Tax me, I’m good for it,' some in the richest 1 percent say in support of the protest

The “Occupy Wall Street” protesters — also known as the “99 percent” — have struck a chord with at least a few members of an unexpected audience: America’s rich and privileged.

United under the banner “We are the 1 percent: We stand with the 99 percent,” a band of entrepreneurs, trust fund babies, professionals and inheritors has taken to the web to share their abhorrence of corporate greed and support for tax code changes that would see them pay a higher share of their considerable wealth.

Among other things, they’re posting their stories on a Tumblr page created by Wealth for the Common Good and Resource Generation, two groups dedicated to working for "fair taxation and just wealth distribution."







Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44973689/ns/us_news-life/

---

http://westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com/

[Syrinx]

1. I knew not all the wealthy are rotten

God bless them.

[AverageJoe90]

2. Gives me hope.

Now let's hope we can get a few Republicans, or at least indie conservatives to vote Democrat next year.

[AnOhioan]

3. Occupy movement not about electing Democrats.....

Don't kid yourself.....Democrats are part of the problem

[SkyDaddy7]

4. Don't kid yourself...

Nothing will change, if people think not voting or running 3rd party candidates is the way to go, sorry. I am realist & that is just the reality within the American Political System right now. Just like President Obama can't pass legislation without 60+ votes in the Senate OWS can't change a damn thing without 60+ votes in the Senate...And that is once the House & POTUS are under control.

Those blaming Obama for not passing everything they wanted the way they wanted will eventually have to face this reality if they want true change. Or they might have to settle with a little here & little there...Nothing happens overnight even if a million people OWS.

It is not scare tactics to say if the Republicans have full control in 2013 workers will be hurt...Jobs will come back but they will be minimum wage jobs like what Perry did in Texas & folks will be forced to take them...And the Republicans will be seen by enough people to be the job creators so that they control the country for a long time.

[No Elephants]

5. Everything is not about Obama. OWS is about things so much bigger than Obama.

Besides that, your assertion that people are mad at Obama because he did not pass everything exactly the way they wanted is beyond silly.

[bread_and_roses]

14. +++++++++++++++ (n/t)

[CBHagman]

16. Totally unfair comment.

Besides that, your assertion that people are mad at Obama because he did not pass everything exactly the way they wanted is beyond silly.

Been on DU lately? Or catch any Nader comments?

The post about the realities of passing legislation (and getting things done in general) was right on the mark. In GOP-controlled states right now, lawmakers and governors are systematically going after both collective bargaining rights and voting rights, and in the nation's capital the Republicans are digging in their heels in the Senate, basically blocking so much as a vote on many, many things, including jobs legislation, and in the House they're just whiling away their time passing anti-abortion legislation and attempts to defund NPR.

But the workaday lives of Americans do depend on what the executive and legislative branches do, and what economic policies are pursued, laws are passed, etc. There was and will be fallout from the debt limit standoff, and it has affected and will affect ordinary people.

[No Elephants]

19. You are mistaken.

And, yes, I have been on DU lately. I do stick to LBN, though.

As far as what I have seen in LBN, your claim and Sky Daddy's are way off the mark, misperceiving what the complaints about Obama have been by quite a bit.

ETA: And, I have seen Sky Daddy's kind of claim responded to in LBN many times, sometimes flippantly, but often quite thoughtfully--much more thoughtfully than that kind of phrasing merits, IMO. Obviously, that does no good because the same point keeps coming up, much as "pony" used to.

[cui bono]

46. +1

Yes, it's mostly excuses for bad efforts, imo.

[Chan790]

73. Only if you've missed the purpose of OWS and Occupy in general. n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

20. I know people want to frame it as...

This is so much bigger than Obama...OK, now what?

[No Elephants]

21. "Want to frame it as?" "Now what?"

I said OWS is about things so much bigger than Obama and your reply is about framing and "now what?" I have no idea what that means.

It's as if I said the sky is blue and your reply were "I know you want to frame it that way. Now what?"

[SkyDaddy7]

26. Saying OWS is bigger than Obama is fine...

But where do we go from words? If the plan is sacrificing Obama, like many here are calling for, to prove something or teach him & others a lesson then I am lost. There is no debate or rational argument that can be made that says we/OWS will advance our cause if we allow the Republicans to win as a means of teaching a lesson to Obama or anyone else...That is pure emotion & not smart politics. If folks think Obama is that bad then reelect him & use the next 4yrs to build there case & their candidates for 2014 & 2016...Because if the Republicans win back control they will lower the unemployment rate by slashing corporate tax rates to nothing & lowering the minimum wage. We know they want to do this & if they have the chance they will. Then enough voters will feel the Republicans are the ones who create jobs & Liberalism could be dead in America! They will win the 2014 mid terms & pass everything the House has passed this year & more. This is reality not scare tactics.

[robinlynne]

61. this is about changing the rpocess itself, not individual players.

The point is the way the laws and the electoral system are functioning here there can not be a democracy. There is not a democracy. Votes are purchased.
It is about creating a real democratic system. Where the representatives of the people are not rich or backed by corporations of any kind.

in other words, much bigger than Obama.

Obama showed us that putting a prettier face on this mess doesn't change things.

[Chan790]

74. Bye then.

Good riddance. Hasta luego!

Scare tactics are scare tactics. I know that a=a is some complex logic and math but I think you can figure it out.

[SkyDaddy7]

93. "Bye then"...Where are you going? nt.

[Beartracks]

86. +1 You can't "teach the system" you must "change the system." n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. Not just silly but arrogant and insulting, also.

[cui bono]

47. And dismissive and showing lack of critical thinking and the ability to be objective. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

8. +infinity!

:kick:

[CBHagman]

17. Couldn't agree with you more, SkyDaddy7.

Particularly about this:

Those blaming Obama for not passing everything they wanted the way they wanted will eventually have to face this reality if they want true change. Or they might have to settle with a little here & little there...Nothing happens overnight even if a million people OWS.

[cui bono]

52. You need to look out of the box and get over Obama.

This is not about Obama. This is not about leaving the system as is and simply not voting or voting 3rd party. This is about changing the system, getting money out of politics, not letting the rich "decide" to help us or not.

Obama is a huge part of the problem. How could he not be? He installed Wall Street into the WH right off the bat. He got elected by corporate money. He has raised a ton of corporate money already. So have all others in congress. The whole election/campaign process needs to be changed or nothing else will change no matter who gets elected as POTUS or into congress. Nothing changed when Dems controlled all houses did it? That's because it's about corporate money and influence controlling our politics and our politicians. Almost every damn one of them.

Life will not get better for most people in this country even if Obama is re-elected as long corporations are buying off the WH and congress. And they are. They are IN the WH every day. They were appointed by Obama. They were invited into back door health care deals by Obama.

This is WAY bigger than Obama and unless we change the whole way of doing business in politics it will never get better. We need to force change and continuing to fawn over Obama when he is clearly part of it all will not help make anything better, ever.

[LanternWaste]

54. I imagine in the midst of change

I imagine in the midst of change, we will still hear from those who deny the existence of that change...

[rhett o rick]

66. Does this mean you oppose OWS because "it takes time" to bring about change?

Basically you're saying we should sit down and shut up. That's what Rahm tried to tell us. What does he think about OWS?

[kenfrequed]

70. Actually,

Most major changes were born on the backs of third party challenges, radical repositioning, and mass movements that did not suborn themselves to existing party structure. The original republicans that fought against slavery were considered 'red free soil' republicans at the time of their inception and they had absolutely nothing to do with the pro wallstreet republicans of today.

The New Deal would have been impossible without tons of leftist activism from other parties such that everyone embraced some aspect of their ideas.

The real key is to start small and start taking over city councils and statehouses. Save the presidency for last. Take over so much of the state apparatus and start injecting in more congressmen in the mold of Bernie Sanders into the legislature until the president runs our direction.

But the Key is to take over. If the Democrats don't work, then run someone that will. Any city that has instant run-off voting should have progressive as hell left of center candidates running on every office. Every single office held by a republican should be contested by someone and if the Democrats are too cowardly to field a candidate than we need third party candidates to run against republicans.

If a Democrat is too much of a damned blue dog to vote for progressive legislation than it is time for a goddamned primary challenge.

[SkyDaddy7]

71. Actually,

Democrats tried to challenge Carter & gave the election to Reagan and look what that brought us?!?

Nader ran against Al Gore & that basically got us where we are now.

Democrats have not learned what the Republicans have known for two decades...Stick together & fight fight fight taking little political victories at time...And what do you know 20yrs later we live in a Conservative country where Unions are all but gone, wages have not risen in 20yrs & taxes are lower than they have ever been!

We MUST realize we cannot get everything we want in one term! It will take a decade or longer to reverse what has been done over the past 20-30yrs & that is ONLY if we stick together & keep winning elections!

Eating our own, especially for POTUS, has NEVER worked in our lifetime...It has ONLY made things far far worse!

President Obama is not the evil vicious anti 99% POTUS many here on DU claim he is. Running a challenger against Obama in the primary or having someone like Nader co-opt the OWS protest & running as a 3rd party candidate would do NOTHING but give the Republicans full control once again. Except this time we all know what they will do & if there is any doubt just look at all the bills the House has past this year. The Republicans would bring the unemployment rate down by slashing the corporate tax & lowering the minimum wage & the unemployed would be forced to take whatever they can. This would convince enough people that the Republicans are the job creators & they would be able to do almost anything they wanted. It could very well be the end of Liberalism in America...At least for a very long time!

[cui bono]

90. You are still thinking inside the box. You seem to not be able to grasp that we must change

the entire system.

You are taking all of this as an attack on Obama. It's not a direct attack on Obama but he is part of the system. The whole system needs to change. He has not taken one step towards changing the system, and in fact, he has made it worse by installing Wall Street in the WH.

This HAS to change. True progressives will get behind Obama when he works to change things. I don't think there are any true progressives who believe he wants to do that. He may not be evil or vicious but he is not taking on the 1%, he appointed them to his administration. Therefore, he is no friend to the 99% no matter what he says.

It's not about eating our own. Our own is almost nowhere to be found. It's about eating the system. If you believe that anyone with a "D" after their name is "our own" then you are sadly mistaken and I implore you to look at this from an entirely different angle. First step is accepting a new paradigm. Accepting that the whole way we do politics in this country has to change. Stop playing the Dems vs. Repubs game the 1% wants you to play. They want us divided so they can continue their rampant greed against us. The whole point of the 99% is to unite the middle and working class against the 1%. If you and enough others keep thinking in your terms this will never happen.

Please, join the 99%. Don't be a 48%er who keeps thinking in terms of party loyalty no matter what that party does.

[SkyDaddy7]

92. Wrong!

I am about changing the system but I am also very aware that it will take time! I support President Obama because whether you & others are willing to admit it or not we need President Obama & more importantly he needs us! If we do not work together then NOTHING will get changed! You should know that a President can do much more "politically" in his/her 2nd term & that is why we need to support him!

NO, I am not "...taking all this as an attack on Obama" I am being very REAL! If we allow the Republicans to win in 2012 OWS will have NOTHING to work with. If you cannot see this then it is you that is missing the big picture not I.

Obama does support Progressive ideas & he will fight to help the middle class...But like he said in 2008 "Yes WE Can"...He did not say "Yes I Can". Had we hit the streets in huge numbers back in 2009 when Obama was being attacked, insulted & called a Socialist on all the financial networks for speaking out against Wall Street & the Tea Party was changing the political narrative in this country things might be different now! Folks either are willingly forgetting this FACT or simply were not paying attention back then? So, as far as I am concerned OWS is two years late!

[cui bono]

95. I agree in working together with Obama, if he works with US. But from what I've seen he is

working with the 1%. The "we" you and others like to point out seems to be him and the 1% based on his appointments, his HRC deals with insurance companies and his failure to investigate the banks.

So let's see how we can achieve both goals. How do you suggest we get him to change the system? I truly believe if he does change it, or at the very least begins a loud and strong and very real attempt to do so, most of his critics will line up behind him in a second. So in all seriousness, how do we start that? If you feel that OWS is 2 years too late, then it's probably more important that it does not fail now. I feel that Obama is still late. So how can we make neither late any more and get them both together to make real change at this time?

I would love nothing more than to have OWS and Obama succeed. But in my eyes Obama succeeds when he starts working for the people - the 99% - so we need to bring them together. I haven't seen any action yet that shows that Obama is behind this movement. The 99% are the "we" you spoke of. "We" are out there now... what's next?

[kenfrequed]

94. you read nothing

You read absolutely nothing I wrote.

I actually specifically and repeatedly stated taht the president is the LAST thing we want to challenge. I pointed out local elecetions, state elcetions, and congressional elections all as stages or steps in trying to win back the country to progressive values.

I have no idea why you are intentionally twisting or misinterpreting things I am saying or why you are defending against charges not made or strawmanning yoru ass off.

Please reread what I wrote and respond to that.

Or don't bother responding to anything.

[quakerboy]

80. Who's trying to kid who?

You want the votes? You got to earn the votes. And being dismissive of OWS does not do it. Many democrats have not done it. The "reality" is that we did elect Democrats. And still nothing changed.

As to your other assertion, it most definitely is a scare tactic to make empty threats(as defined by threatening that what is ALREADY HAPPENING will happen)

[fascisthunter]

27. yes they are, but this movement will change that

[jwirr]

48. Yes they are but I am not about to give away what I took back from

the rethugs in 2008. As for not being a part of the occupy events. Yes, but the last I knew the human race is capable of working on more than one front at a time. If we had a winning third party right now I would vote for them but I am not going to ignore Democrats and let rethugs get back in. For one thing if we lose the WH, senate and congress in 2012 it is game over. They are already making sure that voters cannot vote. When they get done with another 4 years we will be lucky if anyone other than rich white males get to vote.

[valerief]

9. You mean, if Republics vote Democratic, I think. nt

[bread_and_roses]

6. It doesn't matter if they are "rotton" or not - they are still free-loaders

on the labor of others.

Some are probably just sane enough to know that what cannot endure will not endure, and that the best, least inconvenient, least disruptive way for them to hold on to the most of the wealth they've stolen from the people is to let the proles have an occasional half slice of cake instead of just a crumb.

Some are probably just smart enough to have read a little history and understand that the middle of this century was a golden era for the wealthy in this country. Workers, seeing their own standard of living rising and having some comforts, basically ignored them - no angry mobs at the gate, no communist or socialist threat, and a state of law that kept their peers at bay (no baron from over the hill trying to capture their castle).

Some are maybe just un-deluded enough to realize that even that 90% or so tax rate is far better for them than, oh, say, that workers take back control of their own labor and the means of production.

And, if as is no doubt the case, some are genuinely well-meaning, so what? We don't actually need them. If people wake up to that, we might actually see some real change. However, as much as I support and cheer on "Occupy," I doubt that will happen.

So I wouldn't know about 'god" but I, for one, am not about to "bless them."

[Lucky Luciano]

13. Cheer up. nt

[mainer]

30. Are writers and actors freeloaders?

I fail to see how someone like George Clooney or Stephen King has taken something from you.

[bread_and_roses]

43. How much of that wealth came out of workers' hides?

George Clooney is reported to have a net worth of 160 million. King of 400 million (I've no idea how accurate those are - I just took first ref I found on web).

How much, I wonder, is the average Grip's net worth?

http://www.jobmonkey.com/uniquejobs/key-grip.html

On average, a key grip will make $37,000 per year. It's not unheard of for a big Hollywood key grip to make between $80,000 and $100,000 per year, but the work is inconsistent. If there is no filming, there is no work.

And what's the net worth of the truck driver who delivers King's books to the bookstore?

And is Clooney's or King's work more valuable to society than a Pre-School teacher's?

You can't talk about an artist's net worth in a vacuum, any more than you can talk about a "self-made" wo/man without taking into account the roads, water systems, schools, law enforcement, gov't sponsored research etc. that makes said "entrepreneur" successful

[mainer]

51. How does Stephen King's creativity rob a UPS driver?

I still don't get it. He's not picking anyone's pocket. He's not the UPS driver's boss. He's not the boss of the janitorial service that cleans the publishing house. He earns his money because people like his product, and spend money for it.

[Chan790]

75. It doesn't.

It creates labor-demand actually. Stephen King's labor that creates his wealth also creates demand for labor that pays the UPS driver.

Both labors are compensated according to what the market will bear for those labors. Not all labors are valued equally, nor should they be.

[bread_and_roses]

78. and just who assigns the value? the "market?"

That's arrived us at a pretty place, hasn't it?

"The Market" also values artificial air fresheners, evidently - from the entire section of the supermarket they take up - and they help keep the Johnson "family" real fat and happy.

Neither one of you are questioning the assumptions of capitalism - and I sure have not the patience to expound on the matter.

[Lucky Luciano]

81. No success allowed!!!! nt

[Chan790]

84. I'm a Keynesian.

My entire support of liberal economics is a hedge against socialist economics and communism. I believe in regulated-capital, deficit spending, budget-cutting in roaring economies to throttle inflation & pay down debt, and the inherent fundamental incorrectness of Marx and Engels which must be resisted vociferously and by maintaining a benevolent capitalism.

If your goal is anti-capital, you can have your socialist revolution but count me out TYVM. I'll side with the bourgeois f**ks I loathe over "them" every day and twice on payday.

(Exactly what I believe in is spelled-out in my sig-line so that nobody can claim they don't know where I stand exactly.)

[bread_and_roses]

88. "benevolent capitalism"

ROFL.

I am indeed very glad you spelled out exactly where you stand. It saves us the trouble of further conversation.

[mainer]

96. "The market": how much will you pay for a King novel?

Right now, if you e-publish, it's a wide-open market. You can find e-books on Amazon for free, for 99 cents, for any range of price. If you want a free book, you can get it. If you want a King novel, you'll pay more. The consumer IS determining what the price is.

And if a million people decide they'd rather read King than some self-published dreck, and they're willing to pay ten bucks for it, does that make King a villain in your mind? What's wrong with the fact that his work is worth more than than the self-published guy who's published crap? If he earns millions because people want his book and are willing to pay for it, how does that hurt the UPS driver? (the same question I asked before.)

[Posteritatis]

77. And you can be pretty damn wealthy while remaining in that 99% as well. (nt)

[Jim_Shorts]

79. Maybe not rotten, but definitely greedy

Of 400 Richest Americans, Only 8 Say They're Willing to Pay More Taxes

story -->http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/152681/of_400_richest_americans,_only_8_say_they're_willing_to_pay_more_taxes

[andiejen]

7. 'Occupy' protesters find allies in ranks of the wealthy

I do not find this so amazing though I am pleased. Those of us
involved in politics often say vote in your best economic
interest. The top 1% got there from a variety of ways. Some
are trust fund babies, some through meritocracy, some through
a mega lottery. Most know they control 40% of the wealth of
our country. The 99% have the other 60% of the pie. The
widening of the gap has been going on for about the last 30
years. Many have always held the view there will always be the
poor . But now the middle class is being eviscerated. It is a
lot harder when you have had things such as jobs, homes,
health insurance, the ability to send your children to college
and that is all being taken away from you.

IMO I feel the top 1% feel they over played their hand. That
enough just did not exist for them and they are afraid. They
also know they can live with less just fine. Better that than
huge change from the fast disappearing middle class.

So, they are working in their best economic interests. Back
off some or watch it all come down.

[Scuba]

10. Let's face it. We are the 99.9% being owned by a tiny handful of super-wealthy egomaniacs. n/t

[valerief]

11. There are two kinds 1%ers. One kind is the old guy who sits on a park bench

and tosses crumbs to the pigeons. The other kind shoots the pigeons.

The most we'll ever get are crumbs, but it beats getting shot at.

[TBF]

15. This is the craziest post I've read in awhile. There are so many more of us than them -

why in the world would you settle for crumbs?

[No Elephants]

22. Do you already have your fair share? If so, congrats. If not, why call her post crazy?

If that were a crazy post (as opposed to a humorous observation), wealth in the US would be distributed very differently today, wouldn't it?

[valerief]

41. Thanks for getting the humor. nt

[valerief]

39. When have we gotten more? They have men with guns and we don't use guns. nt

[TBF]

49. So give up and eat your crumbs. Yeah, that's funny.

:crazy:

[Chan790]

76. So, go buy a gun.

Mao said quite-correctly that "power stems from the barrel of a gun!"

It's why I've never understood the left's embrace of non-violence or pacifism. It's an embrace of losing and powerlessness. It doesn't have to be a real gun (It could be a mere embrace of resistance), but it does have to be a rejection of the status-quo and a rejection of passivity. Ideas don't win jack or shit, they get shot dead by people willing to invoke force.

[jwirr]

55. Well it is true that the crumbs from years ago were spread around more

generously but believe it or not they were still crumbs - just enough to make the middle class believe that they could be rich someday.

[Taverner]

25. LOL

I like it

[jwirr]

53. LOL Good point.

[Donnachaidh]

12. Funny how the *allies* pop up when a photo-op is available

They sure as heck didn't become wealthy because of their *concern* for the working class.

And the sheep are going to lap this up -- *see, I always thought the elites were -just like us-*

:puke:

[MedicalAdmin]

58. Yah - that FDR. Whata phony.

:sarcasm:

[madokie]

18. The pukies are so out of touch with reality that its not funny anymore

My hope is there will be far fewer of them in our government after this next election.

[LittleGirl]

23. thanks for posting this

brought a tear to my eye!

[No Elephants]

24. I still want to know who's been keeping these people from donating to the U.S. Treasury.

So, I assume they are at least making significant donations to the "occupy" and October 2011 movements now?

If so, cool.

[mainer]

29. Maybe they donate to other places?

Because donating to the US treasury means also donating to wars.

[Critters2]

65. Can you just send extra money to the IRS? I'm asking seriously.

Is there a vehicle for doing that, where the IRS won't just send it back as a refund? If not, then they should give to other charities until such a system is created. If they can now give extra to the IRS, then yes, they should.

[JoeyT]

68. If I were rich I wouldn't voluntarily donate to the US treasury either.

Giving money that's going to feed the war machine? No thanks.

Far better to give to programs that help the poor without the military shaving off half of it, if helping the poor is your goal.

[fascisthunter]

28. Good (nt)

[peacetalksforall]

31. If some of the 1% ers get it, why can't Congress get it?

I am ashamed of Democrats who are really Republicans.

[MrSlayer]

87. Because they are already paid for.

They answer to their paymasters, not to the people. It would be unseemly for them to go back on their word.

[hughee99]

91. And some of them ARE the 1%ers. n/t

[PavePusher]

32. I'll start believing them when they show us...

the check they wrote to the IRS to supplement their normal tax obligation.

As has been stated here on D.U. previously, those folks can send extra money to the government at any time... yet they apparently haven't.

I wonder why?

[mainer]

36. Here's where rich people might prefer to donate

Meals on Wheels.
Local women's shelter.
Food banks.
Doctors without borders.
The list goes on and on. You know your money will go straight to those who need it.

Donate to the US treasury? Along with some of the good things, you'd also be funding fighter jets, bombs, agri-business, and bridges to nowhere.

If you stop and think about it, a rich person who wants to do good would send his money to causes he cares about. Not the US treasury.

[GliderGuider]

40. Yep. I never donate to umbrella charities or governments - I have no control over where the $$ go

Back during my tech boom days I gave significant amounts to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Doctors Without Borders and the Stephen Lewis Foundation (they work on AIDS in Africa) as well as homeless and abused women's shelters in my own city. All were my own choices consonant with my values.

Now that I'm back firmly in 99% territory (and sinking slowly deeper) I give to the same set of charities, but the amounts are smaller. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but no don't make any extraordinary renditions - you never know what the politicians will do with it.

[PavePusher]

42. So, we shouldn't pay more taxes?

O.K., color me confused.

I'm getting very mixed messages on this subject.

[mainer]

50. Of course the rich should pay more taxes

But until EVERYONE in their income group is compelled to do it by law, some wealthy might choose to direct their funds toward charities where they know it would do the most good.

[LanternWaste]

56. It's rather simple, actually.

"I'm getting very mixed messages on this subject..."
It's rather simple, actually. Higher taxes equals a greater collective strength of what we as a nation may or may nor accomplish. On the other hand, the relatively small, ineffective and inefficient redistribution of wealth via personal contribution and moral conviction would be little more than a statistical aberration to the national economy.

Much as the volunteerism of only three dozen Americans in WW2, though admirable on their part, simply would not have had the same impact as American national mobilization had.


"O.K., color me confused..."
But in the end, I imagine that more often than, we see and understand only those things we wish to, and are either confused by or deny those things which to not validate our own presumptions.

[MedicalAdmin]

62. Until the corruption is removed from the system,

sending it extra money would just prop it up.

[jwirr]

64. I did not see anyone saying to stop paying our taxes. That will only

get us in jail. But giving donations to the government is not mandatory and is more helpful if given directly to the source of help.

[jwirr]

57. Absolutely. One of the big frustrations in the 60s was that your tax

money goes to the general fund. I would have been much more happy if I could have paid to the department I wanted to support instead.

If you want to donate then donate to the cause your want to work on. It actually should go to the people.

[MedicalAdmin]

59. Thank you for that right wing talking point.

Here's a site you should enjoy mining for quotes.

http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/11/i-warren-buffett-wants-to-pay-higher-taxes-why-doesnt-he-go-ahead-and-do-it/

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. America's rich and priviledged.

:puke: That is just wrong!

[Mosaic]

35. We need a new New Deal

Nothing less from Obama and the Dems.

[MedicalAdmin]

63. We need another FDR.

Hmmmmm. Wasn't he one of the 1%?

:wtf:

[newspeak]

37. this is not surprising

there was a group that fought little boot's tax cuts, most were actors. I remember, I believe, susan sarandon, I TV at the time talking about the group fighting little boot's obscene tax cuts.

[socialist_n_TN]

38. The working class, even radical and revolutionary

working class groups, have always had supporters in the upper percentile of wealth and income. The poster upthread who talked about (paraphrasing) SOME members of the wealthy elite thinking it was better to invest some of their wealth in the workers, so that the workers would IGNORE rather than fight them, has the right of it. They don't do this kind of thing out of the goodness of their heart. They do it out of, let's call it, enlightened self interest.

Unfortunately, they are a minority of their class and lack influence within their class. FDR was of this sort. He understood that to save capitalism the workers had to have more that the rest of the capitalists were willing to give. The rest of the capitalists of the 30s HATED him and called him a "traitor" to his class for this enlightened self interest, but he was able to co-opt the working class and divert them out of revolution and into "reform". BUT EVEN MODEST "REFORM" WAS HATED BY THE OTHER RULERS! Greed is too entrenched in the entire capitalist system to be expunged by reform. And that's the reason we're having this discussion today. If reform worked over the long term, we wouldn't even be talking about this stuff.

Once again, just like the OWS movement itself, NONE OF THIS IS NEW! I don't know why people keep insisting that ANY of this is such a new phenomena. It reminds me of myself and my first girlfriend who thought we were the only generation who knew about sex. It's naive to think that this is all so new and different. And it's also dangerous because the ruling class KNOWS how to fight against populist uprisings like this. If you think OWS is too "new and different" to be overcome by the capitalist tricks they've honed for centuries, you're setting yourself (and the movement) up for failure.

[krabigirl]

44. many of these people are NOT the 1% (which is the .01%). the 1% controls the govt

these are just regular people, probably a bit wealthier, but not in the 1%.

[drmeow]

45. I wish there was a way to comment

on multiple threads at the same time. To those cynics above me in the comments who say they are free loaders or that they are only doing it because it is in their best interest or they don't really have concern for the middle class - did you read the story? Did you go to the tumblr page?

When George Soros says he should be taxed more, I don't see all these accusations flying around.

My combined household income makes me part of the 10%. My brother (now that his PhD wife finished all her added on med school training and accepting a position at a teaching hospital ... teaching med students how to do abortions, no less) is probably at about 2 or 3%. My sister and her husband probably are, as well. My parents in their retirement are. This is according to the WSJ's probably VERY conservative measure: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/19/what-percent-are-you/

We ALL hold our noses and vote for what we consider the inadequate democratic candidates. I personally am a Kucinich supporter, myself, and Obama was not anywhere near the top of my list during the primaries - too conservative. We also all have PhDs (well, except for my mom who has 2 masters) and have worked all our lives. My brother paid for college at MIT through ROTC so he was also in the military.

We all recognize that because we are white, smart, educated, reasonably attractive, and have always had access to good nutrition and good healthcare we already have advantages over many others.

[orbitalman]

60. K & R

[rhett o rick]

67. Tell them to buy CNN and let the progressives on. nm

[aquart]

69. Good to know some have been raised right.

Unlike the Koch brothers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them.

Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them.
~Edward A. Filene

[Amonester]

82. Ok. They're not ALL 'filthy' Rich.

I see many have a conscience. (Not enuf yet, but it's a start.)

[Amonester]

83. SEND IT TO all CONGRESSCRITERS

And to Penn. Ave. as well.

Urgent.

[gateley]

85. Some of those stories are as touching as those of the 99% in

a way.

What good people. Good souls.

There is hope!

[woo me with science]

89. K&R nt