What Erin said. Every movement has its prissy detractors.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Well, this is what happens when a bunch of spoiled brats and well-meaning hobbyists try to define class warfare for people (like me) who were born into the bottom and still have most of their relatives residing there."

It's not my fault that your family is a bunch of low-lifes.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Is it absurd to lump together the difficulties of the people whose incomes are in the top 10% with those of the bottom 10%? Of course. And is it is equally absurd to suggest that this is at the heart of this movement? Of course.

You found a press release that provided an easy target. Good for you.

But if you're genuinely concerned for that bottom 10%, how about acknowledging that we all have a stake in breaking up the power that is concentrated at the top of our society. Rather than joining the already too loud chorus of derisive and dismissive commentators that would rather mock the efforts of others than join in and make their own contribution.

This movement has its flaws. As does everything else we'll ever encounter in this world. Anybody can sit back and point those out. But the more of us that choose to pass on that polarizing option, and decide instead to contribute something positive and constructive to the process of changing our world, the better off we'll all be.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I'd like to bring up two pertinent clichés:

1) Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere: Obviously, people in the upper 50% don't have it as bad as those in the lower 50%. But the former are still undergoing unfair circumstances caused by the same enemy as those of the latter.

2) Perfection is the enemy of the good: Obviously the Occupy Movement has it's flaws. You don't have to watch Fox News to notice them. We should certainly try to improve, but doing something is better than doing nothing- even if it's not perfect.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Mr. Bogira,

This may be the most deliberately stupid thing I've seen posted on the Reader site.

As you know, the point of the protest isn't just that the 1% at the top is at the top, it is that the 1% at the top now take in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. And, in terms of wealth rather than income, that top 1 percent control 40 percent. The complaint isn't merely that the current system is inequitable, it is that the system is more and more profoundly and permanently inequitable.

(And if people 6-foot-5 and taller captured one of every four dollars earned in America and 2/5 of the nation's wealth, a Shorter America protest movement would be legitimate too.)

-- MrJM

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

This is article is absurd. As if talking about the same ill that is plaguing the entire 99% of the population--including its lower, middle and the upper crust--somehow has to be different. The laws that are providing unfair and uneven playing fields is the laws that are being protested--and no matter whether you are making $20k a year or $150k a year you are still equally placed in an unfair advantage vis a vis the 1% who are getting it all. The same fees from the banks affect the entire 99%. If you are working and leaving on a paycheck, no matter what amount that paycheck is, you are in the same group and are affected by the same injustice.

This article is simply misleading the poor in thinking that somehow the ill that is affecting them is different than the ones affecting me (I am an attorney). We are all in it together and it take the effort of all of us, together, to stand up to the 1% who have built and set up the process to continuously tilt to their advantage.

We all want the government to work for us all--not only for the 1%. In that demand, we are all equally vested and interested. That some of us may drive a Cadillac while others may drive a pinto does not matter--we all pay the same high price for gas. We all are affected by unsafe products, air, and practices. What affects me, affects you--if there is a breakout of tuberculosis, it will affect me as much as it will affect those in the slums and providing proper health care to us all will benefit us all.

So I suggest we stop dividing ourselves and get united--the 1% are united in their thirst for taking it all and count on us to be divided in order to fail.

IMHO.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Can't believe I drove up from Brooklyn just for this."

We're out of food, scram.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"And if people 6-foot-5 and taller captured one of every four dollars earned in America and 2/5 of the nation's wealth, a Shorter America protest movement would be legitimate too."

Have you seen the studies about height and wealth? Being a 5'8" (generously) male, I'm for it. Though it may cause some tension with my taller wife.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

You always seemed 5'8 and 1/2 to me.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Steve, I see your point, but to make a couple notes:

1) OWS's inspiration seems to be as much about power as income. Someone in the 95th percentile is closer to the 99th percentile in wealth and comfort, but arguably closer to the 50th percentile in political influence. They're obviously more than comfortable, but they don't have the kind of money--whether through lobbying, or philanthropy, or social connections--that people perceive as influencing policy.

2) "I've eagerly awaited the welling up of public sympathy for these people, who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic." I have too, but for a myriad of reasons the 10% don't have the political and media leverage of the 20-98%, or however you want to slice it. And for better or for worse, it works to appeal to self-interest.

3) I don't know whether it's for better or worse yet. I believe that OWS/99% believes that their eventual goals will benefit the the true have-nots. It's hard to know yet; it may be that they're out for their own. Which is why I think your point is valuable, but I'm not as skeptical, yet.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Seriously, I'm in the top 5-10% most years, work in finance, and usually get a headache when I read an article about the capital markets in the hard left press - but I've been pleasantly surprised by the level of rhetoric coming from the Occupy Wall Street crowd. You can find a the odd Trot or conspiracist here or there who thinks that the Fed is run by the Illuminati, but they are generally good kids with their heads on their collective shoulders.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"The same fees from the banks affect the entire 99%. If you are working and leaving on a paycheck, no matter what amount that paycheck is, you are in the same group and are affected by the same injustice. "

Nina Taradji,

What fees are you talking about? Are you talking about the $5 a month fee that one bank has announced it will be charging debit card holders who use it to make purchases? Is that what you call an "injustice"? Would you like to f---ing explain how this is an injustice to people who have suffered real injustices, such as Blacks in the south (and the north, for that matter) in the 1950's? This fee is less than it costs to tip your waiter at a restaurant. It is about the price of two tiny candy bars and one soft drink at the drugstore. And this is for a whole month. If this a major reason to go out in the streets and start screaming about "injustices". And you can choose another bank.

The reason Bank of America announced they are going to implement this fee is to compensate for new regulations that limit the fees they can charge to merchants. This regulation was done for the express purpose of reigning-in what was perceived to be an unfair advantage to banks and thus will cause lower prices to consumers (which will be passed down from merchants and will undoubtedly be more than $5 a month for the average person). So this COMPLETELY contradicts the premise that congress does not pay attention to those who are not in the elite. Furthermore, congress has also recently severely limited the times when banks can charge late fees, overdraft fees, and raise interest rates because of late payments or other circumstances. That was actually bipartisan. So the evidence is totally contradictory to the idea that the top 1% have all the political power. And it is unbelievably ridiculous to use a tiny fee that RESULTED from lawmakers responding to "the little guy" and limiting what banks can do with other fees to argue that banks have all the political power. Did that contradiction really pass you by?

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Someone in the 95th percentile is closer to the 99th percentile in wealth and comfort, but arguably closer to the 50th percentile in political influence. They're obviously more than comfortable, but they don't have the kind of money--whether through lobbying, or philanthropy, or social connections--that people perceive as influencing policy."

I don't really think that individuals in the 99th, 95th, 50th or any other percentile have very much political influence based on income alone. I've never heard of any politician deciding a policy in favor of an individual based on that individual's campaign contribution or anything like that (I am not talking about businesses, just individuals on a stand alone basis). They only begin to have a great deal of influence if they have something to offer the government. The Pritzkers, for example, offer to donate money to build and run certain things and can insist that policy in those areas conform to what they believe in. Someone in the 95th percentile could also do the same thing, though not as often and as easily as someone in the 99th percentile like a member of the Pritzker family. A high level executive with a business that is very important to the city could also have quite a bit of influence. But that is because of the business's importance and not the executive's income. So I don't really see how what percentile someone is in directly has an effect on influence. The factors that cause political influence are not based on income, though they may often be somewhat related to it. There doesn't seem to be any basis to the 1% having more influence than 99% theory.

"I believe that OWS/99% believes that their eventual goals will benefit the the true have-nots. It's hard to know yet; it may be that they're out for their own. Which is why I think your point is valuable, but I'm not as skeptical, yet."

In my opinion, it really is not hard to know what is driving the protesters. It is the same thing that drives the tea partiers . You can see that with the similar language they often use about government protecting the elite and the banks being evil. Often there is the same talk about dismantling the federal reserve, such as the post above from "Can't Say My Real Name". There isn't any coherent goal, belief, or message. These people just have a lot of anger and want to blame someone for the problems they have in their lives. Some of them may have genuine reasons to be angry but not necessarily at the people they are expressing anger towards. People like this don't generally do very much research into what the problems are and into the subjects they are protesting. They just want to get their anger out and are looking for someone to blame. Unfortunately, I think most of them have convinced themselves that everything they are saying is right simply because they have decided it is. This even includes the demand that banks "forgive student debt" that is posted on the Occupy Chicago website. So I think it would be a mistake to really talk about what the protesters "goals" are and who they are looking out for as if they even have the slightest idea what they are talking about. And the same is true with the tea partiers. Most of these same people would be protesting with the tea partiers if they had been influenced by more conservative environments, and vice versa.

In case anyone isn't aware, Can't Use My Real Name is not correct that the top 1% do not pay income taxes. They actually pay an enormous percentage of the total income taxes paid by all citizens.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"There isn't any coherent goal, belief, or message."

This was released a few days ago. http://occupychi.org/2011/10/07/our-propos…. Seems pretty coherent in it's goals, beliefs, and messages!

"These people just have a lot of anger and want to blame someone for the problems they have in their lives."

Nah, I don't think that's why they're protesting. Some dudes in New York caused one of the biggest economic meltdowns since the Great Depression, so our government gave most of them cash to keep em afloat, but then didn't hold them accountable for the mess they created. Oh, and after that, this same government said they wanted to save money by defunding public radio and women's health services(among other things), ya know, because the economy is so messed up, because of that meltdown caused by those dudes in New York.

What else could they be protesting? Oh! They might think that it's unfair that some of the richest people in the country wind up paying less taxes than the people that shine their shoes. There are even people in our government who argue that that's totally normal, cause these super rich folks 'create jobs'. Which is a funny thing to say considering unemployment is so high!

Anyways, my point is, I think that the protesters in Chicago have made it pretty clear what they're angry about. And sure, there are probably plenty of things in their lives to be unhappy about, cause hey, that's life, but having their government rewarding criminal behavior that wrecks the economy and then demanding everyone else pay the bill.....well, I think that's something to be unhappy about, and I can't speak for everyone protesting, but I'm gonna guess they're unhappy about it.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Seems pretty coherent in it's goals, beliefs, and messages!"

Yeah, but they need IAC as an editor.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Some dudes in New York caused one of the biggest economic meltdowns since the Great Depression"

Color my memory hazy, but as I recall they had a little help from people happy to sign for more house, more brand-name education, and more trips to the mall than they could afford. At the height of the housing boom, my then-husband and I -- like every one else house-shopping -- were offered lunatic amounts of money. We declined and bought a house comfortably within our means, also turned down the offers to tack on another $10-20K to fancy the house up. Result: Even though he later became disabled and had to leave work, and even though I'm now a single mother who was unemployed just after the bust, we're not homeless. Haven't missed a payment. And because I've always thought the idea of paying big bucks for education is ludicrous, I'm not hostage to massive student loans and never have been.

Yeah, the Wall Street dudes caused the problem, but not by themselves. Somebody -- quite a lot of somebodies -- had to take the bait for the debacle to roll. Unless you want to tell me that most of America's stupid to the point of incapacity about money, in which case maybe it's a bad idea to applaud them as the new directors of the economy, you have to acknowledge the little guy as a partner in greed.

Day before yesterday I talked to a guy who's all jazzed about the Occupants. High school teacher, makes about $70K. Divorced and remarried, two kids the first time, one the second. The wife works, too, so their HHI's around $100K in a below-median COL town. His beef: He can't refinance, is hostage to Bank of America. Sounds terrible, no? Until you realize it's because he filed bankruptcy after running up the credit cards into the high fives -- not with medical debt, though he also had some of that. No, he ran from a marriage without thinking, had more kids than he could afford without thinking, bought a house that stretched him to the limit, and then ignored the existence of taxes, so they piled up and then, like magic, there were penalties. The guy just didn't do the math. Now he thinks he's poor and oppressed, and his credit rating's screwed and his mortgage rate is high, and he'll happily repeat all the OWS talking points, including this lunacy about how "voting doesn't work". He figures the feds oughta pay off his house, or part of it. Gets quite angry if you suggest he's mismanaged the hell out of his own affairs.

Well, whatevs. The dopes will march around and damage small businesses while they're at it; they'll put on cardboard crowns and declare they've brought Change; they'll refuse to vote and tip the country further to the loony God-obsessed right; and all will roll merrily along.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Sparky: "Somebody -- quite a lot of somebodies -- had to take the bait for the debacle to roll."

What you are describing has a name. It is called "fraud" and it is a crime.

-- MrJM

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Most of it wasn't fraud at all. People voluntarily ran to sign large mortgages written to relaxed lending standards, refusing to stop and do a little thinking and arithmetic: Can we really pay this every month? What happens if I lose my job?

If they lied when they stated income, the borrowers committed fraud themselves; if they allowed the mortgage lenders to lie on documents, which state their income quite clearly, and then signed those documents, they collaborated in fraud.

Five years ago, had I not already owned property, I could've gone and signed up for a federally-underwritten program that would've given me a mortgage with 3% down. It sounds great, but it's not. Someone who can't put together more than 3% of a down payment is less likely than a conventional mortgagee to have the income or planning skills to maintain homeownership. That's not fraud; it's just wishful and dumb.

What about student loans? I agree wholeheartedly that the universities are engaged in fraud. It's perfectly legal, though. Credit cards? I find the companies are remarkably careful to color inside the legal lines. Of course, if you're going to tell them you make $70K when you actually make $20K, that's both fraudulent and illegal.

It's amazing to me how the left simultaneously insists Americans are children who can't do math or read the FHA mortgages-for-dummies docs, and shouldn't be held accountable, and yet they're ablaze with certainty that these drooling incompetents will do a great job of running the most powerful nation on earth. I think you'd better pick one or the other.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"People voluntarily ran to sign large mortgages written to relaxed lending standards, refusing to stop and do a little thinking and arithmetic: Can we really pay this every month? What happens if I lose my job?"

Takes two to tango. And you can lay off the semicolons.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Oh! They might think that it's unfair that some of the richest people in the country wind up paying less taxes than the people that shine their shoes."

You either are deliberately misleading people are you are totally clueless about what you are talking about. Some rich individuals may pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes than those in lower percentiles (though likely not the person who shines their shoes, as he probably doesn't pay any federal income taxes at all like everyone in the lower 50% or so income brackets). That mostly results how capital gains taxes are factored in. But they most certainly do not pay lower taxes in dollars. The top 1% pays an enormous percentage of the overall tax revenue that the federal (and other) governments receive.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Frankly, this is yet another completely ignorable column by Bogira. Nobody has been stopping the bottom 10% from protesting, and I certainly see no evidence they aren't welcome at OWS rallies.

For a mass movement to succeed, it requires - duh - the masses. That means the fat, juicy middle of America that is in the middle 50%.

As for IAC, is he writing from a mental institution? Perhaps he hasn't followed the consolidation of the banking industry very closely if he believes "And you can choose another bank."

No, dummy, that's the whole goddamned point - we're losing any resemblance of freedom in our so-called "free market economy." You need to take Trustbusting 101 to learn why oligopolies aren't compatible with capitalism. And read Adam Smith and actually understand what he was saying on the topic.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Funny how IAC echoes the 53% propaganda line. Fair and balanced!

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

You guys ever think that Bogira might be yanking your chain a bit?

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Skeptic,

Bank of America is the only bank that has announced that they plan to charge a $5 monthly fee for using a debit card for purchases. A couple of others have announced that they are test marketing a $3 fee. The overwhelming majority, as of now, have not announced plans for any such fees. These are facts. So your insinuation that people cannot choose another bank is completely factually incorrect. It isn't arguably incorrect or just a bad theory. It is without question false. I wasn't saying anything about banking consolidation or anything of that nature. If Bank of America is successful with this fee it certainly is likely that many other banks will start charging a similar one themselves. I don't think there is much difference with this whether there are the current large banks that exist or whether there is double or even triple the number. But since you are telling me to do such things as "take trustbusting 101" and to read certain economic books I am assuming you have a well-thought out theory about how banks would be less likely to charge the fee if there are more of them than now. Can you share how you have analyzed this? I'm not interested in a general statement like "more competition is better for the consumer". I'm interested in your specific analysis of how a landscape with double or triple the number of big banks would cause each of them not to charge a $5 monthly debit card fee for purchases while they will with the current number. And, of course, if Bank of America is not successful with this fee then nobody else will follow suit and they will end it.

You completely missed Bogira's point. It wasn't that the protesters don't welcome those in the lower 10% to participate or even that they have animosity toward them. It was that it is incredibly naive to think that those in the entire lower 99% have it tough and are being victimized when those in the bottom 10% or so are often dealing with unbelievably difficult circumstances. A successful movement may indeed require a great many people of most income levels. But the way of dealing with that is not to pretend that nearly all income levels are being destroyed by the banking industry and by the top 1% of earners. It is to convince those of higher income earners that they have a stake in fighting for those at the lower end. In the 1960's, there were many whites that fought for civil rights. They didn't do this by pretending they were being discriminated against or were at risk of being lynched just like blacks. They did this by arguing that blacks were being treated unfairly and fighting for their rights. It is possible to engage in a movement fighting for someone other than yourself. If you truly believe in this cause and think it is necessary to draw a lot of people from all incomes then you need to convince people to fight for the plight of others. Or if you really believe that the policies the protesters are fighting against (though I really haven't out what they are) hurt the overwhelming majority of people, such as by lowering economic growth, then you need to accept that there is an enormous difference in the level of stakes of people with higher vs. lower incomes. I guarantee you that the movement will not be successful if its organizers pretend that just about everyone is being victimized in a similar manner and at a similar level. If there is any merit to whatever it is the protesters are trying to convey, they are not going to get anywhere by pretending that the entire lower 99% are poor and being severely victimized by the political system.

FGFM,

I don't understand your last comment at all. I certainly hope you are not actually suggesting that Bogira isn't being serious. Of course he is. And he is right. Bogira may be a flaming leftist but at least he isn't a knee-jerk leftist who always assumes that whatever the liberal conventional wisdom is correct. He is generally consistent and thinks things through, which is somewhat rare for people who are pretty far to one side of the political spectrum.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"I don't understand your last comment at all."

Par for the course.

"I certainly hope you are not actually suggesting that Bogira isn't being serious."

Maybe he's being serious, but I'm not going to take him seriously.

"Bogira may be a flaming leftist"

He's more like a cop of the left. Here's an example of a real leftist who was in favor of the UK riots and all that for your future reference.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/

"He is generally consistent and thinks things through, which is somewhat rare for people who are pretty far to one side of the political spectrum."

Latest poll showed majority support for the OWS movement and I'm proud to count myself in that number. Bogira can stand with the elderly academic concern trolls like Gitlin.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Would you care to cite that poll, FGFM. I don't think most people have even been paying close attention to the news about the protests and probably haven't really followed it in detail. So it wouldn't be surprising if when asked many individuals would give a positive response about people rallying against unpopular institutions such as banks. But once they learn that these people really don't have a coherent message and are asking for ludicrous things like "forgiving student debt" their opinion will change. Based on my observations, the overwhelming majority of people haven't been responding positively when they encounter the protesters downtown. They generally laugh them off and make various comments about how they are nutty. And this is true with people of all backgrounds.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Based on my observations..."

Who needs polls when we have your nutty ass walking around?

http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/13/why-o…

One of the juicier nuggets in TIME’s wide-ranging new poll is that voters are embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement as they sour on the Tea Party. Twice as many respondents (54%) have a favorable impression of the eclectic band massing in lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park than of the conservative movement that has, after two years, become a staple of the American political scene.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

hey, my response to IAC got ensucted. argh.

well, here's the nut of it - I never said there were "no choices," I said we have an oligarchy.

A picture speaks a thousand words:

http://www.teiofficecondos.com/storage/pos…

And the idea that those of us who aren't shoeless and sleeping in the gutter aren't bothered by the existence of people who are is preposterous. I don't need to be a black teen/young adult to know that when that demographic suffers a 90% unemployment rate (or whatever it is in Chicago) it's bad for all of us.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"There are only 4 big banks left"

Let's see: Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, PNC, Wells Fargo (whoo! that's already five), Charter One/Citizens, Capital One, Harris (or whatever it's parent company is called), Fifth Third. I got to nine after just thinking for ten seconds or so. And I'm sure there are others that are just slipping my mind. Do you think any of the banks I named are not big? I have no idea how you somehow decided there were only four big banks. You could always define the work "big" any way you want to get the number you wish. But it is somewhat inconsistent for you to dismiss the importance of smaller but still very big banks when your entire premise seems to be that things would be better if the banks were smaller. And, of course, I can always spend another ten seconds or so thinking of eight or nine regional bank chains here in the Midwest with several branches.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

WFC is the odd-man out on that chart because it's not really a money center bank like the other three, but I guess that it was included because it looked equally dramatic. In other OWS news, someone apparently shopped a photo of a Nigerian chap to make it look like he supported the 53% position, but he actually lives in Spain and waxes rhapsodic about that socialist hellhole!.

http://the53.tumblr.com/post/11440649975

http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/articles…

Spain, to my own view as an immigrant living here for the past one decade, is specially created by God as the Galilee for the world people to see and feel the beauty of nature. This natural endowment makes the country, one of the greatest travel destination in the world with its largest number of world heritage cities surrounded by outstanding beaches on the coastline. It is the second most visited country in the world, with more than fifty million tourists visit annually. A land full of opportunities for all and sundry. The country is blessed with rich cultures and traditions with non-stop festivities throughout the year. The architectural designs of the buildings and roadways are second to non in Europe. The people in this large geographical and cultural diversity country are kind and friendly in all ramifications. Spain has the most best weather in the whole of Europe.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"They are laughing at you people protesting Wall St while they Rape you blindly of your money!"

Ike had a top tax rate of 90%.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

And here's an even more obvious fake.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6214/624556…

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike