Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Matt Damon, Brad Pitt, and a dozen TV personalities have all referred to OWS as a protest of the financial industry. They have nothing to say about the OBSCENE concentration of wealth. WHY?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 23, 2011, 9:42 a.m. EST by ModestCapitalist (2342)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL PART OF THE PROBLEM. THEY ARE ALL CONCENTRATING EVEN MORE WEALTH AS WE SPEAK. THEY ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT STOP. THATS WHY.

Say that reminds me.

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

13 Comments

13 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

The rich and famous do not want to be seen as 'pigs' or go down in history as 'villains'. They want to be seen as 'heros' and go down in history as 'humanitarians'. The market for their product has become global. The fan base has become global. Therefore, the 'humanitarian' effort and 'good will' PR machine has gone global. These 'humanitarian' efforts and 'good deeds' are not chosen to address the greatest need or injustice. They are chosen almost exclusively to appeal to the largest demographic for their respective commercial products. The largest fan base. Efficiency or effect is of little or no concern. Its all about PR, marketing, image, and fame.

This is why the rich and famous have all taken up 'philanthropy' or 'good will' around the world. This is why so many have 'schools' or 'foundations' in their name. This is why so many play golf or appear on a TV game show for 'charity'. This is why so many sign motorcycles, other merchandise, or auction off their own 'personal effects' for 'charity'. This is why so many have TV shows with a 'charitable' gimmick. This is why so many arrange photo ops with wounded veterans, firefighters, or sick children. This is why so many have adopted children from around the world (Which they always pay others to care for full time. The hired professionals are sworn by legal contract to confidentiality. Not allowed to discuss or appear in public with the children they care for. Those 'photo' and 'interview' opportunities are reserved exclusively for the rich and famous 'adoptive' parents.). This is why every 'humanitarian' effort and 'good deed' is plastered all over the media worldwide. Its not about 'humanity' or 'good will'. Its all about marketing, image, fame, and PROFIT. This is why we are so often reminded of their respective 'good deeds' or 'humanitarian' efforts shortly before or after the release of their latest commercial product.

Charitywatch.org and Charitynavigator.org are both non-profit charity watchdogs. Of all the well rated charities (about 1500) only three are closely affiliated with celebrities. Michael J Fox (not the primary donor), Tiger Woods (not the primary donor), and Bill Clinton (not the primary donor). That's three well rated celebrity foundations out of 1500. In general, celebrity foundations run like crap because they blow half the money on private jet rides, five star accommodations, and PR crews.

The fans have been terribly misled. For example:

Virtually every penny 'donated' by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt to date has come from repeated sales of baby photos. With each sale, the baby money goes to the 'Jolie-Pitt' foundation. A foundation which has never done anything but shelter funds. The 'donation' is immediately publicized worldwide.

When Jolie or Pitt have a new movie to promote, a portion is then donated from their own 'foundation' to a legitimate charity. This leaves their ignorant fans under the impression that 'another' donation has been made. When in fact, its the same baby money being transferred again and again. Another portion is blown on private jet rides, super-exclusive accommodations, photo ops, and PR crap. This saves Jolie and Pitt millions in travel/stay expenses and their respective studios tens of millions in advertising. It's all very calculated.

Of course, Jolie and Pitt could simply endorse any of the 1500 most efficient and effective charities. Of course, the baby money would go much further and do far more good if it were donated to such charities to begin with.

But that would be too boring.

The 'Make it Right' Foundation took in over $12,000,000 the first year alone. Tens of millions overall. Brad Pitt has never been the primary donor, planner, or designer. He is a figurehead and salesman with a position on the board of advisors. Nothing more. Still, he has been showered with glorious praise by fellow celebrities and media outlets around the world. Again, the fans have been terribly misled.

In order to move into a 'green' home, the innocent victims of Katrina are required to provide a property deed, meet a number of financial requirements, and pay an average of $75,000 UP FRONT. The difference is offered in cheap loans or on occasion (according to the website) forgiven. To date, only a few dozen former home owners have qualified.

The 'Make it Right' foundation was never intended to help the lower income residents of New Orleans reclaim anything lost in Katrina. In fact, 'Make it Right' is part of a calculated effort to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward without them. Part of a calculated effort to raise property values in the area by displacing the poor. They are by design, excluded. Unable to qualify. Of course, Brad Pitt could have simply endorsed 'Habitat For Humanity'. A well known, proven, and efficient home building operation. Of course, the tens of millions in funding would have gone MUCH further.

But that would be too boring.

Big name celebrities have no desire to make the world a better place.

Their primary goal is to appear as if they do.

It's a sham. Good will has become big business.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

The "philanthropists" advertize their names on the sides of buildings, and some hospital gets advanced equipment and a big wing. Means NOTHING to most who can't afford the doctor...

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 2 years ago

Aha! This point (support small business) has been made by myself and my website Occupy Xmas.

Give it a visit, because it will shut down after Christmas! Follow me on Facebook!

http://occupyxmas.net

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

On Saturday the 10th of December, I promised all of you that CNN would use their new show about 'ordinary people' heroes as yet another excuse to plug their army of filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs. All of which are promoting new CDs, movies, tours, ect. ITS ALWAYS ABOUT MARKETING.

I just did some checking. They did exactly as I promised they would. Those 'ordinary people' were exploited. The entire show was just another gimmick to sell product. Below is the exact entry I posted on Saturday the 10th.

CNN. The Celebrity News Network. What a bunch of rotten sold-out pigs. It's bad enough that they constantly praise celebrities for their bogus fake humanitarian crap every time they have a new movie, show, CD, fashion line, or some other over-priced crap to promote. All while COMPLETELY IGNORING the record high concentration of wealth that filthy rich celebrities represent. That's bad enough. But now, they have the nerve to hype up a new show about 'heroes' and claim that its about ordinary people. It's not. It should be but it's not.

IT SHOULD BE BUT ITS NOT. Those 'ordinary people' are being exploited for ratings and PR. How do I know this? That's easy.

The show will be hosted by Anderson Cooper. The CNN poster boy. His face appears on every single ad for the show. EVERY SINGLE ONE. That wasn't necessary. The show will be attended by the same filthy rich celebrity pigs that CNN commentators constantly praise for their bogus 'good will' fake humanitarian crap. That isn't necessary.

Mark my words: Those celebrity pigs won't be upstaged by 'ordinary people'. No way in hell. THEY REFUSE TO BE UPSTAGED BY ANYONE. They won't stay seated. They won't stay in the background. They have agreed to attend the show in part, to give the ILLUSION that they are humble and modest. They are not. They all have ulterior motives. Every single one of them.

Mark my words: Those filthy rich celebrities have already negotiated with CNN for their own airtime. Their faces will be shown OVER AND OVER AND OVER during the show itself. They will be mentioned by name and invited to appear on stage during the show.

FILTHY RICH CELEBRITY PIGS WHO ALL HAVE NEW PRODUCTS TO PROMOTE. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. THEY ALWAYS HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES. ITS AWAYS ABOUT MARKETING. ITS ALWAYS ABOUT PROMOTING THEMSELVES. THIS IS NO EXCEPTION. THEY CANT EVEN STEP ASIDE AND LET A FEW REAL HEROES HAVE THEIR OWN FUCKING DAY WITHOUT SHOWING THEIR ROTTEN CELEBRITY FACES. ITS A SHAM. ANOTHER ROTTEN MARKETING TRICK.

Of course, there will be scripted lines. The ordinary people were chosen in part, for their willingness to show love for their favorite celebrities or fake it for the camera. Of course, there will be celebrity praise. Maybe, even fake tears. Just remember: Commercial airtime is incredibly valuable. Each minute of commercial airtime is worth six or seven figures. They aren't allocated unless there is a profit to be made. These shows don't just happen. They are carefully planned and rehearsed ahead of time. Every single participant has been coached on what to do and what to say. This includes the ordinary people. Most of whom probably don't realize that they are being exploited by CNN. The Celebrity News Network.

CNN. It's bad enough that they constantly praise filthy rich celebrity pigs for their bogus fake humanitarian crap. They even devoted an entire segment in December of '09' to Madonna and her now disgraced 'Raising Malawi' foundation. That's bad enough. But they can't even throw a bone to a few ordinary people without including a bunch of filthy rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs.

ALL OF WHICH HAVE NEW PRODUCTS TO PROMOTE. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

It makes me sick.

Good will has become big business.

Thats what I posted on Saturday the 10th. The show aired Sunday the 11th. It was basically a two hour long commercial with a gimmick. Those 'ordinary people' were exploited by CNN to give the illusion of heart felt appreciation when in fact, the entire event was sold out to the entertainment industry.

If you search the phrase "CNN heroes", the vast overwhelming majority of entries make immediate reference to the filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs who attended the event. All of whom have new products to promote. Ch'Ching!

If you search the phrase 'CNN heroes' on the 'image' page most of the photos that show up are of the filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs who attended the event. All of whom have new products to promote. Ch'Ching!

I wish I could tell you that 1 out of 10 of those photos on the 'image' page were of those 'ordinary (decent) people'. But I can't. Its more like 1 out of 100. The rest of the photos are of Anderson Cooper and the filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs who attended the event. Ch'Ching!

Like I said on Saturday the 10th, those filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs negotiated with CNN for their own air time. Their own close-ups. Their own introductions. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bothered to show up. Its now obvious that they have also instructed their publicists to plaster the entire web.

Ch' God Damn Fucking Ching!

Those bastards. They couldn't even step aside for one fucking event and let those 'ordinary (decent) people' have their own fucking day. They just had to show up and exploit ANOTHER event for maximum publicity. Maximum sales. MAXIMUM PROFIT.

Anderson Cooper, Miley Cyrus, Kid Rock, Taylor Swift, and the whole bunch of those filthy disgusting rich fake humanitarian celebrity pigs suck. THEY SUCK. They have some God Damn nerve.

HEY CNN. YOU FILTHY SOLD-OUT PIGS. I HAVE A CHALLENGE FOR YOU. ITS MORE THAN A CHALLENGE. ITS A FUCKING DARE! THATS RIGHT. I DARE YOU TO PROVE ME WRONG. I FUCKING DARE YOU. PRODUCE ANOTHER TWO HOUR LONG SHOW ABOUT 'HEROES'. THATS RIGHT YOU FUCKING SELL-OUT PIGS. I DARE YOU TO DO ANOTHER ONE. THIS TIME, LEAVE THE CELEBRITIES OUT OF IT. LEAVE THEM OUT. LEAVE THEM OUT. LEAVE THEM OUT. LEAVE THOSE FILTHY DISGUSTING RICH FAKE HUMANITARIAN CELEBRITY PIGS OUT OF IT!

No? THATS WHAT I THOUGHT. You miserable fucking sell-out pigs. THATS WHAT I THOUGHT!

[-] 1 points by Keepitsimple (110) 2 years ago

You stated,"The entire show was just another gimmick to sell product." 99% of all the stories, games, sports, etc is to sell product. And between the stories, games, etc is the obvious advertising to sell product. Pure and simple!!! I know, I worked in advertising.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

All true. Just for the record: I have nothing against the concept of advertising. Name the product. Show the product. Describe the product. Demonstrate the product. Maybe even throw in some harmless gimmick (like a talking gecko) to get the attention of the potential consumer. I'm OK with that.

But no lies, no fake smiles passed off as real, no fake humanitarian crap, no FAKE life savings, no brainwash plots in TV shows, no implications of the 'good life', no subtle insults directed at those who choose another product, AND NO TRYING TO UPSTAGE REAL HEROES.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13739) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

If you are saying the entertainers are over paid, I would agree. It's as true in sports as it is in Hollywood - and it has consequence. If the public is willing to be robbed on the price of a DVD then of course, every franchise in the telecommunications industry, delivery vehicle of so much of that entertainment - will jump on board.

And they have a monopoly on services we today consider vital.

The ripples of affect spread on throughout the economy. As a result we are overpaying for practically everything.

That said, I don't see the celebrities you have listed as a part of the problem. They are human beings, working within what is.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

I am very critical of public figures. But I didn't develop these opinions overnight. The way I see it, they flash their big money, big mansions, expensive cars, and multi-million dollar contracts in our faces every day. Not necessarily with an attitude but that doesn't matter. These public displays and daily reminders of extreme personal wealth are a horrible influence on society. Greed spreads like wildfire. In a shallow attempt to put a positive spin on their own extreme personal wealth, they run their mouths about 'humanity', wear adopted children like fashion accessories, and feed us the most bogus unrealistic promises of a 'better world' and fake humanitarian crap the world has ever seen. All while concentrating even more wealth. When its all said and done, they get richer, the fans get dumber, and the masses get poorer. There are no words to fully express how much I hate them for such Earth shattering greed and profound hypocrisy.

Don't even get me started on the other publicity stunts. Like FAKE wardrobe malfunctions. What fucking idiot can't figure out how to keep their clothes from falling off or down or blowing up in public?

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13739) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You weren't impressed with Janet's Jewelery? Ah well . . .

I guess I see this whole issue as one that is rooted in humanity itself - celebrities are human, and so they behave as humans do.

They are as subject to the ills of our society as any one else.

Are they willing to use their careers as a means of providing some measure of truth to the public, even if it comes in the form of allegory?

I think with the two celebrities you have pointed to the answer is yes, and I don't think their contribution should simply be dismissed out of hand.

I do see where you are coming from, where dysfunctional behavior becomes glorified it can be quite repugnant.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

I see it rooted more in modern society. But on a positive note, you just added a new word to my vocabulary. I had to look it up.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13739) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

and just how cool is that?

[-] 0 points by Frizolio (80) 2 years ago

You think its just the rich 1% but even they are poor compared to the 10 dynasties that own the Federal reserve which in reality caused the 1929 crash and what we have today. You can't touch them. Thats why they are called untouchables. They laugh at people like you and OWS protesters. You could never redistribute their wealth. You would only end up redistributing the incomes of the middle class and lower wealthy class. All those above them have already gotten their money out of the USA. In essence you are just screwing yourselves and the middle class with your communism BS.

[-] 1 points by Keepitsimple (110) 2 years ago

Yes, there are the people with lots of money and then way above that are the untouchable wealthy. But I don't agree that we can't squeeze them a bit. Probably not enough to make them bleed though.