*Occupy Wall Street*

[HollyS]

Holly S and beebrisk in 2012 ...

How come no one ever craps all over you?

Because they think you're just going "Aw, shucks! Little ol' conservative me, bother you? Nah. Why would I want to do that?"

I know what you're really doing over there. Rolling your eyes and cussing under your breath and counting to ten and then posting "thing2, I love you!" I'd bet money on it. I prefer not to wink, nudge, and be cutesy. But, then, I'm angry.

b/c they "the PS liberals" know that i don't understand English very well so they don't wanna waste their time on me...

I know a load of BS when I smell it, DF. And yours stinks to high heaven.

 

[HollyS]

Perfect example of the danger of thinking that OWS is peopled only by lazy entitled stoners. I bet the cops are puckered up badly right now. Nothing like shooting an employed decorated Iraq war marine vet....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/anti-wall-street-protesters-hold-vigils-for-iraq-war-vet-injured-during-police-clash/2011/10/28/gIQAwgVTOM_story.html

but they are!...as immigrants of the 60's our family worked 10-12 hrs a day in a restaurant kitchen to make ends meet,so don't tell me that these people are in worse situation than we were. more entitlements = more lazy people.

Now you've poked the wrong dog.

Lay around a park all day and all night for weeks on end, smoke a little weed, take food from anyone that will deliver it to you free of charge, throw your trash around and relieve yourself on the premises. You are a no good, lazy stoner.

Do all the above, just with a big sign in your hand and the liberals and media will label you a hero and a patriot.

Which was the only real point I made to start with. NOT that there isn't anything to be concerned with, to protest over, to do our best to bring about change for . . . just this. Those who disagree want to delude themselves into believing that some sort of utopian experience is being had by the "Occupy" crowd, and if we just rally behind them, we'll change the world.

When you dispense with the personal agendas, the fame whores, the celebrity hanger-on-ers, the wannabes, and the I'm-still-a-hippies, you're left with a small group of people who may be there for the right reasons. The hard truth is that someone somewhere will ruin a good cause for their own selfish purposes. Or a whole crowd of someones will. That's where "Occupy" is now.

 

[beebrisk]

Perfect example of the danger of thinking that OWS is peopled only by lazy entitled stoners. I bet the cops are puckered up badly right now. Nothing like shooting an employed decorated Iraq war marine vet....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/anti-wall-street-protesters-hold-vigils-for-iraq-war-vet-injured-during-police-clash/2011/10/28/gIQAwgVTOM_story.html

but they are!...as immigrants of the 60's our family worked 10-12 hrs a day in a restaurant kitchen to make ends meet,so don't tell me that these people are in worse situation than we were. more entitlements = more lazy people.

Now you've poked the wrong dog.

Lay around a park all day and all night for weeks on end, smoke a little weed, take food from anyone that will deliver it to you free of charge, throw your trash around and relieve yourself on the premises. You are a no good, lazy stoner.

Do all the above, just with a big sign in your hand and the liberals and media will label you a hero and a patriot.

Which was the only real point I made to start with. NOT that there isn't anything to be concerned with, to protest over, to do our best to bring about change for . . . just this. Those who disagree want to delude themselves into believing that some sort of utopian experience is being had by the "Occupy" crowd, and if we just rally behind them, we'll change the world.

When you dispense with the personal agendas, the fame whores, the celebrity hanger-on-ers, the wannabes, and the I'm-still-a-hippies, you're left with a small group of people who may be there for the right reasons. The hard truth is that someone somewhere will ruin a good cause for their own selfish purposes. Or a whole crowd of someones will. That's where "Occupy" is now.

Yep!

 

[MissStepcut]

I do not understand why threads like this have to turn into painting broadly what "liberals" or "conservatives" think. It really trivializes the important issues and reduces our political arena to a Vikings v. Packers game. I know that's just sorta how these things work in the U.S. but I think PS could be so much better than that.

 

[Circe]

I do not understand why threads like this have to turn into painting broadly what "liberals" or "conservatives" think. It really trivializes the important issues and reduces our political arena to a Vikings v. Packers game. I know that's just sorta how these things work in the U.S. but I think PS could be so much better than that.

Can I get an amen and a hallelujah from the choir ....

 

[AGBF]

I do not understand why threads like this have to turn into painting broadly what "liberals" or "conservatives" think.

Nor do I. I also do not know how anyone on Pricescope today can expect to understand fully what the Occupy Wall Street Movement means. I think that the future will give us better perspective on it as it does on so many phenomena. It may be a very ephemeral movement that leaves no lasting impression on the greater society. On the other hand, particularly if the unemployment situation does not improve-or worsens-it may become the harbinger of a larger societal movement that envelops many other people and brings sweeping change to societal institutions. In my opinion, only the future will tell us which course is in store for the movement.

It really trivializes the important issues and reduces our political arena to a Vikings v. Packers game. I know that's just sorta how these things work in the U.S. but I think PS could be so much better than that.

Again, I agree. I do not think it helps for us simply to choose sides and fight. I think there are some questions here that are going to be answered by time, regardless of what any of us want to happen. Either the economic climate in the country will improve and the Occupy Wall Street movement will become irrelevant, or the economic climate will deteriorate, and it will become extremely relevant. Anyone who remembers the riots in Detroit and in Watts in the 1960's will know of what I speak. When it is hot in the cities and too many people have been without jobs for too long, things start to get frightening. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City predicted this just a few weeks ago. But I say only time will tell what will come to pass.

Deb/AGBF

 

[minousbijoux]

I haven't checked in on this thread in a few days and I'm sorry to see that it has deteriorated.

Thanks to all of you for keeping the discussion going. Thank you Holly for expressing your opinion and standing your ground; you have helped to make it a good debate. Thank you ksinger for your knowledge and incredibly articulate posts. Finally, thanks so much Packrat for sharing so honestly your economic reality and the effects the downturn has had on your family.

A few random thoughts and observations:
- I think it takes a fair amount of frustration and desperation to get to the point of protesting. I don't think the majority of folks demonstrating and sleeping out relish the prospect of doing so, but feel strongly enough about the issue to sacrifice for what they believe. I admire that commitment, knowing that I would probably not do that myself.

- Polls indicate that the number one concern in the U.S. has shifted from the size of the Federal deficit (a few months ago) to recognition and concern over the inequity in income distribution. It would appear that our political leadership is pretty polarized with a resulting inability to get much done. Case in point: it took a game of chicken for Congress to approve an increase to the debt ceiling. It is therefore not surprising that people are choosing, right or wrong, to exercise their right to be heard by protesting rather than appealing to their congressional representatives.

- Occupy Oakland, as I said a few pages back, was dirty and a health concern (it was attracting rats), had significant drug problems including overdoses, and was discussed in the local media as turning violent and out of control with property damage due at least to increasing graffiti (and probably other things as well). The recent history of Oakland residents and law enforcement has not been good, and it didn't take much to escalate an already bad situation. When Scott Olsen was critically injured, it completely turned the tide of public opinion. I inadvertently drove by the scene the day after the police had forced the evacuation of the area, and was stunned to see barricades everywhere and rows and rows of black wearing, riot gear dressed and helmeted police standing at attention, each holding what was either some big baton or a rifle like gun. They looked threatening and inhuman. The fact that Scott Olsen was a clean cut, decorated veteran and gainfully employed was eye opening for many, as he changed the "face" of what many thought the demonstration was. He happened to be frustrated enough to travel all the way to Oakland to protest out of solidarity for the economic hardships faced by so many.

I really wish this country had not become so polarized, but since it is, this is what we can expect to see, like it or not.

Deb, thanks so much for starting this thread and for being a voice of reason.

 

[iheartscience]

I just read this great essay written by a woman who surprised herself by joining Occupy Oakland: http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/the-l...mputer-and-into-the-streets-at-occupy-oakland

She writes that the livestreams of the protest from both major news organizations went black just before police started tear gassing protesters, which is what prompted her to go take part. Incidentally, the photos of the camp tell a very different tale than your post, minousbijoux. My favorite excerpt from the essay, including a line that seems especially appropriate for this thread:

"Given our image-saturated society, it's hard to explain how the absence of an image can be more dramatic, a bigger scandal, than the hundreds of disturbing videos of citizens being attacked by police. We're used to thinking of surveillance as the enemy. Big Brother abides, and I can testify that there's something undeniably eerie about the news helicopters hovering over my neighborhood. But for those helicopters hanging in our sky for hours and hours, waiting for a story, to disappear precisely when the story breaks—that's a different kind of sinister, a different kind of wrong.

Police brutality is, on the other hand, overly familiar. It's a phrase we know too well; part of what should shock us about it is the easy way it rolls off the tongue. But we're used to shock by now; “shock and awe” is in our national lexicon and we're no longer either shocked or awed by it. People observe, sagely, in comment threads across the Internet, that yes, sometimes the police use excess force, but this is what happens when people don't obey police orders (however unlawful those orders might be). Honestly, what did they expect?

Those people tend not to know Oakland's history with the police, or the police's history with Oakland, they've probably never experienced anything remotely like police brutality themselves, and they also tend to let a winking cynicism about how the world works disguise their resignation and passivity. (I should know—I'm not too far from being one of them.)

Underpinning those fatalistic, head-shaking comments is a faith that the world works more or less the way it's supposed to. Don't do anything wrong and the police won't bother you. Vote and you'll be represented. Do your job and you'll be able to live in relative comfort. And if you want to change things, go through the proper channels. Start a petition! Write to your representative! If something really important happens, the news will surely cover it."

My favorite line is bolded, emphasis mine.

 

[Lula]

I just read this great essay written by a woman who surprised herself by joining Occupy Oakland: http://www.theawl.com/2011/10/the-l...mputer-and-into-the-streets-at-occupy-oakland

She writes that the livestreams of the protest from both major news organizations went black just before police started tear gassing protesters, which is what prompted her to go take part. Incidentally, the photos of the camp tell a very different tale than your post, minousbijoux. My favorite excerpt from the essay, including a line that seems especially appropriate for this thread:

"Given our image-saturated society, it's hard to explain how the absence of an image can be more dramatic, a bigger scandal, than the hundreds of disturbing videos of citizens being attacked by police. We're used to thinking of surveillance as the enemy. Big Brother abides, and I can testify that there's something undeniably eerie about the news helicopters hovering over my neighborhood. But for those helicopters hanging in our sky for hours and hours, waiting for a story, to disappear precisely when the story breaks—that's a different kind of sinister, a different kind of wrong.

Police brutality is, on the other hand, overly familiar. It's a phrase we know too well; part of what should shock us about it is the easy way it rolls off the tongue. But we're used to shock by now; “shock and awe” is in our national lexicon and we're no longer either shocked or awed by it. People observe, sagely, in comment threads across the Internet, that yes, sometimes the police use excess force, but this is what happens when people don't obey police orders (however unlawful those orders might be). Honestly, what did they expect?

Those people tend not to know Oakland's history with the police, or the police's history with Oakland, they've probably never experienced anything remotely like police brutality themselves, and they also tend to let a winking cynicism about how the world works disguise their resignation and passivity. (I should know—I'm not too far from being one of them.)

Underpinning those fatalistic, head-shaking comments is a faith that the world works more or less the way it's supposed to. Don't do anything wrong and the police won't bother you. Vote and you'll be represented. Do your job and you'll be able to live in relative comfort. And if you want to change things, go through the proper channels. Start a petition! Write to your representative! If something really important happens, the news will surely cover it."

My favorite line is bolded, emphasis mine.

Thank you for posting the link to her story. Very scary about the news blackout.

I just returned from a trip to northern Italy, just west of the lakes region and near the Italian Alps and the border with Switzerland. There are villages there, still inhabited and thriving, that date from medieval times. In most every village, there is a plaque on the side of a wall, honoring the resistance movement, and marking the spot where a resister was executed by Nazi supporters, during and after WWII, when Mussolini and the fascists controlled Italy. It was sobering to stand in the middle of a town that had such ancient roots and think about how quickly a fascist regime was able to take hold. Italians celebrate liberation day http://www.italylogue.com/planning-a-trip/liberation-day-in-italy-festa-della-liberazione.html to remember those who died in this struggle.

Think this can't happen here in the U.S.? I'm not so sure. We are a very young, and, in many ways, an immature country. We have a lot to learn from other countries in the world who have seen their way of life turned upside down by a political regime gone mad. I believe our lack of tolerance for differing viewpoints, our overall ignorance and apathy when it comes to economics and politics, and our growing incivility and unwillingness to compromise put the U.S. at risk of becoming a more "police-like" state. Is this what we want?

 

[zoebartlett]

Hypocrites on parade

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/28/8522718-michael-moore-confesses-i-am-the-1-percent

Don't you think there's a difference though between successful and greedy? My husband and I love watching documentaries, and we've watched a lot of Moore's films. Yes, he's a wealthy man (but one of the wealthiest? Hmmm, not sure about that one). I think he does fight for others who are not in his same tax bracket, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I think many of the WS corporate higher-ups were just selfish and greedy. Moore doesn't come across that way to me.

 

[UnluckyTwin]

The conservatives here talking about how the liberals have been mean should re-read their own posts. They ain't the nicest...

Two points:
1. It's not easy to Occupy in NYC. Temperatures are harsh, resources are few. I assure you that, while there may be some hangers-on just looking for a good time, MANY people out there would prefer to be home in bed, safe and warm, the world a better place. This is called a struggle for a reason.

2. Occupy Wall St. is not the only Occupy out there. At Occupy Raleigh and Occupy Chapel Hill, there have been ZERO instances of littering, vandalism, using the bathroom in public, blocking businesses from working, etc. I name these two sites because those are the ones I have personally been involved in. Reports from other Occupy sites are similar. NYC seems to be getting a different crowd, because it's in a major city, with much diversity, lots of poor people, and in the middle of a tourist spot, being a bit glamorized. Those of us (MOST of us) who are NOT dealing with a glamorized Occupation look very different. We are clean, we are orderly, and we are PROTESTING. We are struggling, we have received MUCH fewer donations, we are cold, we are wet from rain, we have had our few supplies (e.g., lawn chairs) taken by the police. I know NYC started this thing, but don't think for a minute it represents all of us. It'd be too easy then to write us off. Go seek out pictures, videos, and new stories from Occupations you might find more "respectable," then you'll realize, we look just like all of you. We ARE a movement. We are NOT living the easy life of getting stoned and looking for handouts. We cycle in and out of Occupying based on our WORK schedules.

That is all.

 

[Imdanny]

smitcompton: I don't know who you are, or even why you're here. However, I'm pretty positive you don't know me well enough to tell me I'm angry. And since we don't know each other, and have never had a discussion together, who are you to offer your opinion of me? Imagine my opinion, now, of you . . .

As for drama, nope, don't like drama. Nothing is ever solved by drama. But thanks for weighing in on my 'attitude' so you could stir some up.

Did you think you were going to mock the song most associated with the Civil Rights Movement and not stir up "drama"? Seriously?

And also thanks for the stereotype of the DFH.

smitcompton was being nice. I don't think I could say what I think about your posts and remain within the boundaries of PS rules.[/quote]


1) I didn't mock the song. I mocked the pseudo-anti-establishment protesters (current crop and the nostalgic) who trot out this ditty for every cause. The fact that you (and other posters) fail to recognize the difference makes me wonder about your other cognitive skills.

2) As for the second bolded part, I've never particularly cared for your posts either. So what? I'm sure that isn't any more a big deal to you than your dislike of me being a problem for moi. Suppose you just simply stop worrying about what I think all the time? I can assure you that your opinion doesn't make me hate you - - I simply skip most of your posts.

So, dial down the pissiness.

That you did is a fact, not an opinion. The edit function, as we all know, only allows us to edit for a limited amount of time. Anyone can see that you mocked the song. Do you want to get technical about "cognitive skills"? The fact that you did it, and what you meant by it are two different things. As far as your, "Suppose you just simply stop worrying about what I think all the time?," give me a break. I've taken issue with your posts in two threads in the entire three years I've posted here. Please don't think that I "worry" about what you think "all the time." Trust me. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what you, and people who share your views, think. And thanks for telling me you don't hate me (I think). I don't hate you, either. I haven't replied to any of your posts in at least a year and somehow I worry about what you think all the time and I hate you? Yeah, neither is true. No worries.

 

[HollyS]

imdanny, as promised, here's my response:

Obviously, you like me.

 

[minousbijoux]

Thing2:

Thanks so much for her essay and your response. I am not at all surprised to hear that there was a news blackout immediately prior to the crackdown in Oakland. I think you know that I was not trying to dismiss Occupy Oakland based on the news accounts - I was trying instead to convey what I thought were the "facts" from the media (and from friends of mine who work down there and pass through it/upon it every day).

I have a lot of respect for anyone who will sacrifice for what they believe, simple as that.

As for Oakland, I would really worry about the protestors there as they are literally sitting in a tinder box. A bad history between law enforcement (the police and BART police), a track record of violent crime and high unemployment, homeless who were already there before the protest, and what appears to be a completely ineffective mayor are a recipe for disaster.

 

[beebrisk]

Hypocrites on parade

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/28/8522718-michael-moore-confesses-i-am-the-1-percent

Don't you think there's a difference though between successful and greedy? My husband and I love watching documentaries, and we've watched a lot of Moore's films. Yes, he's a wealthy man (but one of the wealthiest? Hmmm, not sure about that one). I think he does fight for others who are not in his same tax bracket, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I think many of the WS corporate higher-ups were just selfish and greedy. Moore doesn't come across that way to me.

And just who is to say who's greedy? And so what? There's absolutely no law prohibiting personal greediness. You want to be greedy? That's your right.

I despise Michael Moore, but I don't begrudge him his millions, nor do expect (or accept) the idea of anyone telling him what to do with it. Whether he "fights for others not in his tax bracket" isn't the issue. Living in NYC, I have known lots of extremely wealthy people. Every one of them is a huge benefactor to children's' charities, animal charities, AIDS charities, the arts, etc... However, it is by choice. It's called personal freedom.

It is no one's business what anyone does with what they have. And it should be of no concern if a highly successful person decided not to part with a dime.

If you earn it, inherit it or win it in a lottery, it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS- should they feel their taxes aren't high enough and they aren't doing their "fare share".

In fact, here's the payment information if anyone would like to make a voluntary tax payment: eftps.gov

I encourage anyone to send an electronic payment (it's easy!) if that's what it takes to ease your conscience.

 

[Imdanny]

Hypocrites on parade

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/28/8522718-michael-moore-confesses-i-am-the-1-percent

Don't you think there's a difference though between successful and greedy? My husband and I love watching documentaries, and we've watched a lot of Moore's films. Yes, he's a wealthy man (but one of the wealthiest? Hmmm, not sure about that one). I think he does fight for others who are not in his same tax bracket, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I think many of the WS corporate higher-ups were just selfish and greedy. Moore doesn't come across that way to me.

And just who is to say who's greedy? And so what? There's absolutely no law prohibiting personal greediness. You want to be greedy? That's your right.

I despise Michael Moore, but I don't begrudge him his millions, nor do expect (or accept) the idea of anyone telling him what to do with it. Whether he "fights for others not in his tax bracket" isn't the issue. Living in NYC, I have known lots of extremely wealthy people. Every one of them is a huge benefactor to children's' charities, animal charities, AIDS charities, the arts, etc... However, it is by choice. It's called personal freedom.


If you earn it, inherit it or win it in a lottery, it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS- should they feel their taxes aren't high enough and they aren't doing their "fare share".

In fact, here's the payment information if anyone would like to make a voluntary tax payment: eftps.gov

I encourage anyone to send an electronic payment (it's easy!) if that's what it takes to ease your conscience.

Ok, the philosophy you've outlined in this post, I hope I might refer to it fairly as your"it's YOUR'S" philosophy, has been combined with your (I'll admit somewhat rhetorical ) question: "And so what?" after asking who gets decided who's "greedy."

Have I been fair so far? I don't want to misrepresent your post; it's just that I need "terms" to work with to reply to you and it seems to me that the terms should be yours.

You've said a lot in this post about about individuals. You've said nothing about society. It's essential in light of the topic of this thread to discuss not only individuals but also society. Moreover, it would be impossible to discuss economics with discussing society.

It seems to me (and again please let me know if I'm wrong) that your philosophy, in fact, boils down to what you said as follows:

"It is no one's business what anyone does with what they have. And it should be of no concern if a highly successful person decided not to part with a dime."

The following sentence is very interesting to me:

" it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS-..."

However, the IRS is most certainly not a charitable organization and taxes are owed; taxes are not a matter of individuals' charitable inclination.

Do you think that what you said is literally what you believe? In other words, do yo believe that whatever a person earns, inherits, or wins in a lottery belongs to that person absolutely, including not to the government? I'm not sure what you believe on this point. Your use of bold letters at: "it's YOUR'S" seems to indicate that the answer is yes.

As far as who gets to decide, the government gets to decide. The Constitution gives it the power to tax.

I would like to talk more with you (assuming, of course, that neither of wants to personally insult the other) if you are willing to please clarify your view regarding individuals' rights/ possession and the government's role/ taxes.

Thank you.

 

[Imdanny]

imdanny, as promised, here's my response:

Obviously, you like me.

 

[MissStepcut]

I am finding this discussion of greed vs success very interesting. Honestly, I don't begrudge anyone their wealth, in theory. It's just that the way the finance industry has made their money that doesn't sit well with me. CDOs, consumer credit cards, "processing fees" for loans that the industry doesn't really bear the risk on... it just doesn't seem right. It seems monopolistic. There are other things about it that I don't like, but those are some biggies. The big Wall Street banks don't seem to be adding societal value proportional to the wealth they walk away with.

It's a little hypocritical of me since both me and my SO will be paying our bills thanks to the big banks as corporate lawyers, but... I dunno. I would rather our best & brightest would find better things to do with their time than finding ways to exploit market inefficiencies to make a quick buck.

My SO's baby brother will be working as a trader for a big bank after he graduates from a top 5 undergrad. He double majored in math and physics and has over a 3.9 GPA. This kid is just wicked smart. I really, really wish he wasn't devoting his energies to trading. He could be doing so much more for society. I see the financial industry as a destructive brain drain. We aren't going to cure cancer or develop cold fusion or save the polar bears thanks to the finance industry, and we might not do those things at all if our most promising youth spend their lives trying to skim a little cash off the top of big financial transactions.

 

[HollyS]

"You like me! You really like me!"

So I'm fiesty and I get fired up. I'm still a somewhat likable pain in the tush . . .

 

[0-0-0]

thbmok - Given what you seem to be interested in, I suspect you will find this equally interesting...it's about social mobility in the US. I've posted it before in other threads, but it's good enough to post again.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

Yes, a lot of insightful research has been done in recent years, and frankly I think more people should pay attention to the work that is being done. I find one of the recent presentations at TED fascinating, and again I hope it adds to the discussion.

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

I think it captures some of the sentiments behind the "Occupy" and "99%" movements around the globe, and why I don't find it hypocritical that some in the top 1% choose to "stand with the 99%". http://westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com/

 

[ksinger]

thbmok - Given what you seem to be interested in, I suspect you will find this equally interesting...it's about social mobility in the US. I've posted it before in other threads, but it's good enough to post again.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html

Yes, a lot of insightful research has been done in recent years, and frankly I think more people should pay attention to the work that is being done. I find one of the recent presentations at TED fascinating, and again I hope it adds to the discussion.

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

I think it captures some of the sentiments behind the "Occupy" and "99%" movements around the globe, and why I don't find it hypocritical that some in the top 1% choose to "stand with the 99%". http://westandwiththe99percent.tumblr.com/

Interesting talk. Thanks for posting it. I do wish he had addressed both size and ethnic diversity as they correlate with inequality. He kept holding forth the Scandinavian countries and Japan, which are both small (comparatively speaking) and not nearly as ethnically/socially diverse as the US, which is at the sad end of all his charts. I'm always interested in how sheer size affects these things, and it is a factor that seems almost never to be addressed.

IMO, what you have now is the elevation of the so-called rights of the individual (or at least the "right" individuals) over the good of society to the point that the fact that there might even BE a societal good is a concept that is almost completely defunct. As I mentioned way back in this thread, we have managed to doublespeak greed - one of the traditional seven deadly sins - into a virtue, or if not a virtue than something neutral. If someone wants to be greedy - who cares? I guess you just chalk it up to the "people vary" mantra. Of course, a hard look at the French Revolution (as just one of the more spectacular examples) of what can happen to a society where basic fairness is perceived to be missing, might be instructive.

As for people paying attention to such info as you and I have linked, well, it's not pretty. It is depressing, and very complicated,. AND it doesn't square with our American mythos about ourselves, so many refuse to even look. They prefer to continue to see movements like OWS comprised of nothing but a bunch of lazy entitled children, and believe that anyone can make it to the top, and mountains of contradictory data that wealth is still concentrating even as more of us hurtle down into the ranks of the unwashed masses, be damned.

I have no problem with other people having more money than I do. I have no real desire to be rich or obscenely rich. But 1% of people controlling 40% of the wealth? It simply cannot stand for much longer. The destabilization has already begun....

 

[UnluckyTwin]

IMO, what you have now is the elevation of the so-called rights of the individual (or at least the "right" individuals) over the good of society to the point that the fact that there might even BE a societal good is a concept that is almost completely defunct. As I mentioned way back in this thread, we have managed to doublespeak greed - one of the traditional seven deadly sins - into a virtue, or if not a virtue than something neutral. If someone wants to be greedy - who cares? I guess you just chalk it up to the "people vary" mantra. Of course, a hard look at the French Revolution (as just one of the more spectacular examples) of what can happen to a society where basic fairness is perceived to be missing, might be instructive.

As for people paying attention to such info as you and I have linked, well, it's not pretty. It is depressing, and very complicated,. AND it doesn't square with our American mythos about ourselves, so many refuse to even look. They prefer to continue to see movements like OWS comprised of nothing but a bunch of lazy entitled children, and believe that anyone can make it to the top, and mountains of contradictory data that wealth is still concentrating even as more of us hurtle down into the ranks of the unwashed masses, be damned.

I have no problem with other people having more money than I do. I have no real desire to be rich or obscenely rich. But 1% of people controlling 40% of the wealth? It simply cannot stand for much longer. The destabilization has already begun....

I think this post is reasonable, rational, fair, and to-the-point. Furthermore, it's an assessment of values that I think every Occupier can get behind, and that every human being SHOULD get behind. Thanks ksinger!

 

[beebrisk]

Hypocrites on parade

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/28/8522718-michael-moore-confesses-i-am-the-1-percent

Don't you think there's a difference though between successful and greedy? My husband and I love watching documentaries, and we've watched a lot of Moore's films. Yes, he's a wealthy man (but one of the wealthiest? Hmmm, not sure about that one). I think he does fight for others who are not in his same tax bracket, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I think many of the WS corporate higher-ups were just selfish and greedy. Moore doesn't come across that way to me.

And just who is to say who's greedy? And so what? There's absolutely no law prohibiting personal greediness. You want to be greedy? That's your right.

I despise Michael Moore, but I don't begrudge him his millions, nor do expect (or accept) the idea of anyone telling him what to do with it. Whether he "fights for others not in his tax bracket" isn't the issue. Living in NYC, I have known lots of extremely wealthy people. Every one of them is a huge benefactor to children's' charities, animal charities, AIDS charities, the arts, etc... However, it is by choice. It's called personal freedom.


If you earn it, inherit it or win it in a lottery, it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS- should they feel their taxes aren't high enough and they aren't doing their "fare share".

In fact, here's the payment information if anyone would like to make a voluntary tax payment: eftps.gov

I encourage anyone to send an electronic payment (it's easy!) if that's what it takes to ease your conscience.

Ok, the philosophy you've outlined in this post, I hope I might refer to it fairly as your"it's YOUR'S" philosophy, has been combined with your (I'll admit somewhat rhetorical ) question: "And so what?" after asking who gets decided who's "greedy."

Have I been fair so far? I don't want to misrepresent your post; it's just that I need "terms" to work with to reply to you and it seems to me that the terms should be yours.

You've said a lot in this post about about individuals. You've said nothing about society. It's essential in light of the topic of this thread to discuss not only individuals but also society. Moreover, it would be impossible to discuss economics with discussing society.

It seems to me (and again please let me know if I'm wrong) that your philosophy, in fact, boils down to what you said as follows:

"It is no one's business what anyone does with what they have. And it should be of no concern if a highly successful person decided not to part with a dime."

The following sentence is very interesting to me:

" it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS-..."

However, the IRS is most certainly not a charitable organization and taxes are owed; taxes are not a matter of individuals' charitable inclination.

Do you think that what you said is literally what you believe? In other words, do yo believe that whatever a person earns, inherits, or wins in a lottery belongs to that person absolutely, including not to the government? I'm not sure what you believe on this point. Your use of bold letters at: "it's YOUR'S" seems to indicate that the answer is yes.

As far as who gets to decide, the government gets to decide. The Constitution gives it the power to tax.

I would like to talk more with you (assuming, of course, that neither of wants to personally insult the other) if you are willing to please clarify your view regarding individuals' rights/ possession and the government's role/ taxes.

Thank you.

With a promise not to insult and a thank you for actually asking and not attacking, I'll try to clarify my position here.

I was reacting to Zoe's comments regarding Michael Moore and that he doesn't seem as "greedy and selfish" as some other wealthy people. Of course none of us know how greedy, selfish or charitable he actually is, but that's besides the point.

As I stated above, I have nothing but distaste for Mr. Moore, but I hope I never have to live in a country where the government has decided he's earned "too much". In fact, that thought is chilling to me. Of course the government has the power to tax but contrary to your statement, I don't believe the government "gets to decide" who is too rich. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I don't believe that was part of the package.

My rich friends (and I'm talking multi-millionaires) pay more in taxes every year than I earn over the course of several years. They also own large, expensive properties that are taxed at ridiculous rates (been to the Hamptons or Manhattan lately?). They buy very large toys in greater quantity than I could dream of at a NY/NYC sales tax rate of 8.865%. Layer that on top of their Federal, State and City income taxes and you're talking about 40+% of their earnings going to the IRS and city and state coffers.. Do I feel sorry for them? No. Do I believe it's their responsibility and their moral obligation to take care of "society"? Absolutely not.

Ironically however, they are huge benefactors--generous and charitable. In fact, do a little research on charitable fund raising in this country (and NYC to be specific) and you'll find the most charitable people are among the richest. Again, look at the history of some of the biggest charitable organizations, dedicated to helping the poor, the sick and the helpless. Check out their directors and patrons and you will find a very long list of names of people with very deep pockets and very caring hearts. I for one, am sick and tired of the rich being demonized and treated like pariahs.

And you are right, I talk only of individuals because I believe so strongly in individual liberty. The concept that is the basis for our Constitution. Hand in hand with individual liberty comes individual responsibility--the notion that you are responsible for you. Not you and me.

I am not a member of the 1%,not by any means. I will however defend them their right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness, without further encroachment by a government that already takes under penalty of imprisonment, a good chunk of their earnings.

As for sending a check to the IRS, of course I wasn't implying that they are a charitible organization. I was referring to the sycophants of Warren Buffett and his ilk who have this idea that higher taxation is the answer to society's ills. If anyone here feels they aren't contributing enough of their wages to the Feds, then by all means they should log on and pay up! I'm sure a few hundred million more is needed to squander on the next Solyndra.

Before anyone labels me a Gordon "Greed is Good" Gecco type, I'm not. I'm all about sharing. If you have it. But more importantly, if you want to.

The irony of this discussion on a board dedicated to the most precious, coveted and valuable gemstone on earth hasn't escaped me. Perhaps we can experiment with "fairness" right here. It would be interesting to see how fast anyone ringing their hands over "economic inequity" would be willing to remove their lovely e-ring, tennis bracelet, pave huggies or pear-shaped pendant to spread a little wealth of their own. Hmmmm...

(Danny, that was just a general snark...not directed toward you)

 

[HollyS]

Hypocrites on parade

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/28/8522718-michael-moore-confesses-i-am-the-1-percent

Don't you think there's a difference though between successful and greedy? My husband and I love watching documentaries, and we've watched a lot of Moore's films. Yes, he's a wealthy man (but one of the wealthiest? Hmmm, not sure about that one). I think he does fight for others who are not in his same tax bracket, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I think many of the WS corporate higher-ups were just selfish and greedy. Moore doesn't come across that way to me.

And just who is to say who's greedy? And so what? There's absolutely no law prohibiting personal greediness. You want to be greedy? That's your right.

I despise Michael Moore, but I don't begrudge him his millions, nor do expect (or accept) the idea of anyone telling him what to do with it. Whether he "fights for others not in his tax bracket" isn't the issue. Living in NYC, I have known lots of extremely wealthy people. Every one of them is a huge benefactor to children's' charities, animal charities, AIDS charities, the arts, etc... However, it is by choice. It's called personal freedom.


If you earn it, inherit it or win it in a lottery, it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS- should they feel their taxes aren't high enough and they aren't doing their "fare share".

In fact, here's the payment information if anyone would like to make a voluntary tax payment: eftps.gov

I encourage anyone to send an electronic payment (it's easy!) if that's what it takes to ease your conscience.

Ok, the philosophy you've outlined in this post, I hope I might refer to it fairly as your"it's YOUR'S" philosophy, has been combined with your (I'll admit somewhat rhetorical ) question: "And so what?" after asking who gets decided who's "greedy."

Have I been fair so far? I don't want to misrepresent your post; it's just that I need "terms" to work with to reply to you and it seems to me that the terms should be yours.

You've said a lot in this post about about individuals. You've said nothing about society. It's essential in light of the topic of this thread to discuss not only individuals but also society. Moreover, it would be impossible to discuss economics with discussing society.

It seems to me (and again please let me know if I'm wrong) that your philosophy, in fact, boils down to what you said as follows:

"It is no one's business what anyone does with what they have. And it should be of no concern if a highly successful person decided not to part with a dime."

The following sentence is very interesting to me:

" it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS-..."

However, the IRS is most certainly not a charitable organization and taxes are owed; taxes are not a matter of individuals' charitable inclination.

Do you think that what you said is literally what you believe? In other words, do yo believe that whatever a person earns, inherits, or wins in a lottery belongs to that person absolutely, including not to the government? I'm not sure what you believe on this point. Your use of bold letters at: "it's YOUR'S" seems to indicate that the answer is yes.

As far as who gets to decide, the government gets to decide. The Constitution gives it the power to tax.

I would like to talk more with you (assuming, of course, that neither of wants to personally insult the other) if you are willing to please clarify your view regarding individuals' rights/ possession and the government's role/ taxes.

Thank you.

With a promise not to insult and a thank you for actually asking and not attacking, I'll try to clarify my position here.

I was reacting to Zoe's comments regarding Michael Moore and that he doesn't seem as "greedy and selfish" as some other wealthy people. Of course none of us know how greedy, selfish or charitable he actually is, but that's besides the point.

As I stated above, I have nothing but distaste for Mr. Moore, but I hope I never have to live in a country where the government has decided he's earned "too much". In fact, that thought is chilling to me. Of course the government has the power to tax but contrary to your statement, I don't believe the government "gets to decide" who is too rich. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I don't believe that was part of the package.

My rich friends (and I'm talking multi-millionaires) pay more in taxes every year than I earn over the course of several years. They also own large, expensive properties that are taxed at ridiculous rates (been to the Hamptons or Manhattan lately?). They buy very large toys in greater quantity than I could dream of at a NY/NYC sales tax rate of 8.865%. Layer that on top of their Federal, State and City income taxes and you're talking about 40+% of their earnings going to the IRS and city and state coffers.. Do I feel sorry for them? No. Do I believe it's their responsibility and their moral obligation to take care of "society"? Absolutely not.

Ironically however, they are huge benefactors--generous and charitable. In fact, do a little research on charitable fund raising in this country (and NYC to be specific) and you'll find the most charitable people are among the richest. Again, look at the history of some of the biggest charitable organizations, dedicated to helping the poor, the sick and the helpless. Check out their directors and patrons and you will find a very long list of names of people with very deep pockets and very caring hearts. I for one, am sick and tired of the rich being demonized and treated like pariahs.

And you are right, I talk only of individuals because I believe so strongly in individual liberty. The concept that is the basis for our Constitution. Hand in hand with individual liberty comes individual responsibility--the notion that you are responsible for you. Not you and me.

I am not a member of the 1%,not by any means. I will however defend them their right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness, without further encroachment by a government that already takes under penalty of imprisonment, a good chunk of their earnings.

As for sending a check to the IRS, of course I wasn't implying that they are a charitible organization. I was referring to the sycophants of Warren Buffett and his ilk who have this idea that higher taxation is the answer to society's ills. If anyone here feels they aren't contributing enough of their wages to the Feds, then by all means they should log on and pay up! I'm sure a few hundred million more is needed to squander on the next Solyndra.

Before anyone labels me a Gordon "Greed is Good" Gecco type, I'm not. I'm all about sharing. If you have it. But more importantly, if you want to.

The irony of this discussion on a board dedicated to the most precious, coveted and valuable gemstone on earth hasn't escaped me. Perhaps we can experiment with "fairness" right here. It would be interesting to see how fast anyone ringing their hands over "economic inequity" would be willing to remove their lovely e-ring, tennis bracelet, pave huggies or pear-shaped pendant to spread a little wealth of their own. Hmmmm...

I can't even begin to tell you how much this post delights me. Thank you.

I'm bowing out at this point; I've said my piece and beebrisk has aptly summed up what I didn't say. The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

 

[beebrisk]

The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

Where's the "LIKE" button on this thing??

 

[ksinger]

Hypocrites on parade

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/28/8522718-michael-moore-confesses-i-am-the-1-percent

Don't you think there's a difference though between successful and greedy? My husband and I love watching documentaries, and we've watched a lot of Moore's films. Yes, he's a wealthy man (but one of the wealthiest? Hmmm, not sure about that one). I think he does fight for others who are not in his same tax bracket, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I think many of the WS corporate higher-ups were just selfish and greedy. Moore doesn't come across that way to me.

And just who is to say who's greedy? And so what? There's absolutely no law prohibiting personal greediness. You want to be greedy? That's your right.

I despise Michael Moore, but I don't begrudge him his millions, nor do expect (or accept) the idea of anyone telling him what to do with it. Whether he "fights for others not in his tax bracket" isn't the issue. Living in NYC, I have known lots of extremely wealthy people. Every one of them is a huge benefactor to children's' charities, animal charities, AIDS charities, the arts, etc... However, it is by choice. It's called personal freedom.


If you earn it, inherit it or win it in a lottery, it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS- should they feel their taxes aren't high enough and they aren't doing their "fare share".

In fact, here's the payment information if anyone would like to make a voluntary tax payment: eftps.gov

I encourage anyone to send an electronic payment (it's easy!) if that's what it takes to ease your conscience.

Ok, the philosophy you've outlined in this post, I hope I might refer to it fairly as your"it's YOUR'S" philosophy, has been combined with your (I'll admit somewhat rhetorical ) question: "And so what?" after asking who gets decided who's "greedy."

Have I been fair so far? I don't want to misrepresent your post; it's just that I need "terms" to work with to reply to you and it seems to me that the terms should be yours.

You've said a lot in this post about about individuals. You've said nothing about society. It's essential in light of the topic of this thread to discuss not only individuals but also society. Moreover, it would be impossible to discuss economics with discussing society.

It seems to me (and again please let me know if I'm wrong) that your philosophy, in fact, boils down to what you said as follows:

"It is no one's business what anyone does with what they have. And it should be of no concern if a highly successful person decided not to part with a dime."

The following sentence is very interesting to me:

" it's YOUR'S. Whoever feels obliged can send whatever they like to anyone, any charity and yes, even the IRS-..."

However, the IRS is most certainly not a charitable organization and taxes are owed; taxes are not a matter of individuals' charitable inclination.

Do you think that what you said is literally what you believe? In other words, do yo believe that whatever a person earns, inherits, or wins in a lottery belongs to that person absolutely, including not to the government? I'm not sure what you believe on this point. Your use of bold letters at: "it's YOUR'S" seems to indicate that the answer is yes.

As far as who gets to decide, the government gets to decide. The Constitution gives it the power to tax.

I would like to talk more with you (assuming, of course, that neither of wants to personally insult the other) if you are willing to please clarify your view regarding individuals' rights/ possession and the government's role/ taxes.

Thank you.

With a promise not to insult and a thank you for actually asking and not attacking, I'll try to clarify my position here.

I was reacting to Zoe's comments regarding Michael Moore and that he doesn't seem as "greedy and selfish" as some other wealthy people. Of course none of us know how greedy, selfish or charitable he actually is, but that's besides the point.

As I stated above, I have nothing but distaste for Mr. Moore, but I hope I never have to live in a country where the government has decided he's earned "too much". In fact, that thought is chilling to me. Of course the government has the power to tax but contrary to your statement, I don't believe the government "gets to decide" who is too rich. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I don't believe that was part of the package.

My rich friends (and I'm talking multi-millionaires) pay more in taxes every year than I earn over the course of several years. They also own large, expensive properties that are taxed at ridiculous rates (been to the Hamptons or Manhattan lately?). They buy very large toys in greater quantity than I could dream of at a NY/NYC sales tax rate of 8.865%. Layer that on top of their Federal, State and City income taxes and you're talking about 40+% of their earnings going to the IRS and city and state coffers.. Do I feel sorry for them? No. Do I believe it's their responsibility and their moral obligation to take care of "society"? Absolutely not.

Ironically however, they are huge benefactors--generous and charitable. In fact, do a little research on charitable fund raising in this country (and NYC to be specific) and you'll find the most charitable people are among the richest. Again, look at the history of some of the biggest charitable organizations, dedicated to helping the poor, the sick and the helpless. Check out their directors and patrons and you will find a very long list of names of people with very deep pockets and very caring hearts. I for one, am sick and tired of the rich being demonized and treated like pariahs.

And you are right, I talk only of individuals because I believe so strongly in individual liberty. The concept that is the basis for our Constitution. Hand in hand with individual liberty comes individual responsibility--the notion that you are responsible for you. Not you and me.

I am not a member of the 1%,not by any means. I will however defend them their right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness, without further encroachment by a government that already takes under penalty of imprisonment, a good chunk of their earnings.

As for sending a check to the IRS, of course I wasn't implying that they are a charitible organization. I was referring to the sycophants of Warren Buffett and his ilk who have this idea that higher taxation is the answer to society's ills. If anyone here feels they aren't contributing enough of their wages to the Feds, then by all means they should log on and pay up! I'm sure a few hundred million more is needed to squander on the next Solyndra.

Before anyone labels me a Gordon "Greed is Good" Gecco type, I'm not. I'm all about sharing. If you have it. But more importantly, if you want to.

The irony of this discussion on a board dedicated to the most precious, coveted and valuable gemstone on earth hasn't escaped me. Perhaps we can experiment with "fairness" right here. It would be interesting to see how fast anyone ringing their hands over "economic inequity" would be willing to remove their lovely e-ring, tennis bracelet, pave huggies or pear-shaped pendant to spread a little wealth of their own. Hmmmm...

I can't even begin to tell you how much this post delights me. Thank you.

I'm bowing out at this point; I've said my piece and beebrisk has aptly summed up what I didn't say. The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

Ksinger never said any such thing, because she did not and does not believe that. As I recall, ksinger's HUSBAND wrote a piece on this board (alas, in a long-ago pulled thread, or I'd repost it here) about how historians view and write history, and you wrote back that the explanation was "too esoteric" and was therefore basically irrelevant.

Having a point of view is human and inevitable, and historians have them too. However, twisting the facts (or ignoring them completely) to fit a point of view that refuses to ever budge in the face of conflicting information, well, that is something else entirely. Zinn(hard left) and Schweikart(hard right) sit side by side on our history shelves. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I try to post articles, suggest books, or refer to things I've read not to impress, but to add something other than how I feeeeeeel about things and to point out that the situation we find ourselves in right now is not exactly new. I personally talk with a lot of people who actually think this is the first time we've been in this situation and are unaware of the past. In general this board is more informed than most, but still...

I've moderated my view of various sections of American history and our social issues more than a bit over the last few years, and it has been due to the possession of more information.

 

[UnluckyTwin]

I can't even begin to tell you how much this post delights me. Thank you.

I'm bowing out at this point; I've said my piece and beebrisk has aptly summed up what I didn't say. The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

Nah, the conservatives on this board don't post anything mean, just the liberals...

Also, what is with the anti-intellectualism in this country? "NO! Don't show me articles, diagrams, or charts! Please, not DATA!! I refuse to look at it! I refuse to believe it!" Do as you wish, but I prefer to be informed before I put my opinions out there. No need to fear science and information.

 

[iheartscience]

Ksinger never said any such thing, because she did not and does not believe that. As I recall, ksinger's HUSBAND wrote a piece on this board (alas, in a long-ago pulled thread, or I'd repost it here) about how historians view and write history, and you wrote back that the explanation was "too esoteric" and was therefore basically irrelevant.

Having a point of view is human and inevitable, and historians have them too. However, twisting the facts (or ignoring them completely) to fit a point of view that refuses to ever budge in the face of conflicting information, well, that is something else entirely. Zinn(hard left) and Schweikart(hard right) sit side by side on our history shelves. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I try to post articles, suggest books, or refer to things I've read not to impress, but to add something other than how I feeeeeeel about things and to point out that the situation we find ourselves in right now is not exactly new. I personally talk with a lot of people who actually think this is the first time we've been in this situation and are unaware of the past. In general this board is more informed than most, but still...

I've moderated my view of various sections of American history and our social issues more than a bit over the last few years, and it has been due to the possession of more information.

But my gut knows way more than all your books or articles. I don't need no information or fancy book learnin'!

 

[iheartscience]

I can't even begin to tell you how much this post delights me. Thank you.

I'm bowing out at this point; I've said my piece and beebrisk has aptly summed up what I didn't say. The rest of you can go on impressing each other with your news articles, diagrams, polls, charts, op-ed pieces, and history lessons. But, as ksinger once told me, history is in the mind of the beholder and their interpretation of it . . . so history won't look the same to everyone, will it?

Nah, the conservatives on this board don't post anything mean, just the liberals...

Also, what is with the anti-intellectualism in this country? "NO! Don't show me articles, diagrams, or charts! Please, not DATA!! I refuse to look at it! I refuse to believe it!" Do as you wish, but I prefer to be informed before I put my opinions out there. No need to fear science and information.

The problem is that data doesn't always support the gut feelings of conservatives (or in the case of say, climate change, it doesn't support their anti-environmental regulation desires), so they have to dismiss it all as elite liberal nonsense. That way they can continue to bash the OWS protesters as lazy hippies despite all the data showing that OWS protesters actually have a very good point.

 

[packrat]

I think it's wonderful that the rich are more likely to be generous w/their money to charities etc..but..just a thought here, isn't it *easier* to be generous when you *have*? I like to be generous. I like to help people out. If I gave my last $5 to a homeless guy, for me that really would BE my last $5. I could've gotten a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs w/that money, it's budgeted to feed my family. But nobody's going to crow about it and flatter me about my massive generosity and bottom less heart and my undying love for humanity. If I have millions in the bank and give a million, well shit I'm on the front page. If you have 10 apples and give 5 away, you still have 5 apples. If I have 1 apple and give 1/2 away, I only have 1/2 an apple left..even tho I gave the same percentage as you. I have way less, a fraction of what you have, and I *started out* w/a fraction of what you have *after* you gave 1/2 away...and so your gift is more worthy of note, b/c it's bigger? It's easy to sit back and smile and be "modest" about being a benefactor to those less fortunate (pshaw, I *wanted* to do it, it brings me such joy to make people happy) when you're sitting in a 10,000 square foot house and the money you gave will make not one dent in your life, you'll put on your suit that cost as much as some families bring home in a month, and feel good about yourself. It's a lot harder to part w/it when you're in a 1000 square foot house, mortgaged, driving a 15 year old broken down vehicle, keeping track of every penny...but you still have a caring heart and want to help in some way. Nobody thinks for a second about the people who give the small amounts b/c that's *all* they can do. Go ahead and donate $5million to the Make a Wish Foundation (for instance), it's a terrific cause. But there are people who still want to help that can't afford to give that much, or want to help but can't do it at all...they're busy working a couple jobs to make ends meet, or they're on unemployment.