The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

I’m Pretty Sure Kanye is Part of the 1%

By on 10.11.11 @ 1:07PM

Yesterday, hip hop icon Kanye West made his way to Zuccotti Park to show that he is down with the so-called 99%.

But if these 99 per centers were worth their salt they would have booed Kanye or at the very least told him to watch his throne because given his earnings of $16 million over the past year I am pretty sure that makes him part of the 1% responsible for all the greed and corruption in America.

Then again he probably gets a lifetime pass because he said George W. Bush doesn’t care about black people.

View all comments (19) |

Drew| 10.11.11 @ 1:22PM

Who will survive in America? That is how Kanye ends his My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy album that came out nearly a year ago. This is the question everyone is asking in an America where the power and wealth are so controlled by a small number. If Bob Dylan showed up in Washington you wouldn't be making the same comments about his money discrediting his feelings on the m0vement that is taking place. You have no idea why Kanye went down their yesterday and you have no right implying that he shouldn't be there because of his money.

LiveFreeOrDie| 10.11.11 @ 2:22PM

Millionaires who cash paychecks from corporations protesting against corporations is hypocritical and deserves to be noted at the very least. If not, then why not? Please explain.

Trinacria| 10.11.11 @ 2:58PM

Ah, yes...only in America can a marginally witted simpleton with no discernable skill "earn" $16 million a year for "rapping" (and, God knows, where would we be without that indescribably valuable contribution to society?), then march in protest against the greed of those horrible corporations that paid him, and then be lauded by folks like Drew who have become so divorced from any semblance of reason that they're unable to see the laughable absurdity of their position. God help us...

Trinacria| 10.11.11 @ 2:46PM

"You have no idea why Kanye went down their yesterday..."

And neither, apparently, does Kanye...

By the way, not to split hairs, but I suspect you meant "down there" (but, then again, I suppose it would be rather much to expect of anyone who would support this moron to know the difference between "there" and "their")...

ggoblue| 10.11.11 @ 5:54PM

not so fast my friend, i know exactly why kanye went down there....he is a useful idiot who believes his own BS.

only an ass like kanye could knock 50 million sympathetic americans of the contribution list after katrina. by turning it political. and yet the left still reveres him for it. useful, racist, idiots.

12 months until the next tsunami, democrats! and yet you still prefer steel toed boots to life preservers....

JohnD| 10.11.11 @ 1:55PM

Isn't his record label a corporation?

Mason| 10.11.11 @ 3:06PM

So I guess you all believe that no millionaire has a right to side with the "99%?" And of course he gets a paycheck from a corporation, the vast majority of America does, including those protesters, because there isn't much of an alternative if you'd like to survive or try and support a family. Tried getting a small business loan lately?

Warren Buffett is a 1%er, and he recently came out and stated that he doesn't think it's fair that his secretary pays more in taxes than he does thanks to carried interest and capital gains loopholes. I don't see any problem with that logic.

As far as how Kanye earned his money, isn't that what the free market is all about Trinaricia? At least he didn't bankrupt anyone or foreclose on anyone to get that money. But I suppose Mr. Blankfein is a more admirable member of society?

I think you are all missing the point here.

LiveFreeOrDie| 10.11.11 @ 4:14PM

Your first premise is untrue. "Most" people do not work for corporations. The majority of jobs in this country are supplied by small businesses.

Your second falsehood, banks don't make any money foreclosing on upside-down mortgages. So who exactly got rich foreclosing on homes?

If we're missing the point, enlighten us without spreading B.S. There's plenty of valid criticism available to bash corporations.

Mason| 10.11.11 @ 4:52PM

premise one, you may be right and I may have hastily jumped to the conclusion that since corporations generate so much revenue and the largest companies get huge subsidies in the form of tax breaks, that they would employ the most people. Now that I think about it, I am definitely wrong on that one. Everything they sell is made overseas and if they outsource more jobs they can give the executives bigger bonuses. I concede that point, but I think that goes into some of the dissatisfaction expressed by the protesters.

Second, they don't make any money after seizing the foreclosed homes? What do they do with those assets, then? They certainly made money by giving out a bunch of toxic mortgages. The banks lent money to firms like Countrywide, who in turn created billions in dicey loans, who then sold them back to the banks, who chopped them up and sold them to, among other things, your state’s worker retirement funds. They also labled these MBS's as AAA rated securities, knowing full-well that they were not, and then bet against them, essentially betting for the investments they sold their clients on to fail. That upsets me because it is blatantly dishonest and predatory, and I think it upsets a lot of the protesters out there as well. And that doesn't even venture into the territory of fraudulent foreclosures that have been rampant over the past several years.

I certainly agree that there is plenty of valid criticism to bash corporations with. I mainly am concerned with the banks on Wall Street that wrecked the economy with irresponsible and illegal trading of other people's money, got bailed out by taxpayers, and did not suffer any criminal penalties. It is "Occupy Wall Street," not "Occupy Corporate America."

LiveFreeOrDie| 10.11.11 @ 5:28PM

The Mortgage industry lowered the standards because of legislation leading to the government-backed fannie/freddie debacle. They certainly made tons of money by originating loans, collecting a few payments then shuffling them off to F and F. Remember they were playing by the rules given which is really another topic but the point is that a bank holding a note loses a great deal of money at foreclosure. They simply don't recuperate the loss when the value of the house is roughly half the loan amount and foreclosed homes typically sell at a discount to present value as well.

There are, we agree, valid problems with the way corporations are run. The thing is we (elected officials) set the rules. Unless they are doing something illegal the problem rests squarely on the shoulders of Washington, D.C., not wall street. The protesters should be marching on Washington and they probably would be if there were a conservative in office. Since it's the most left-of-center President we've ever had occupying formerly useful space in the Whitehouse they are in a conundrum. Hence the vague, senseless commentary coming from the protestors.

David W| 10.11.11 @ 4:48PM

"At least he didn't bankrupt anyone or foreclose on anyone to get that money"

Are you saying that someone is able to bankrupt or foreclose on someone just out of the blue? I thought someone declared bankruptcy for themself because they spent more than they made and could not hope to pay off the debts they had accrued (sometimes due to circumstances beyond their control and sometimes due to dumb mistakes). As far a foreclosure, I though that a bank forclosed on someone because they could no longer make payments they agreed to make (though there have been some situations where a bank, through sloppy work, tried to foreclose on a house that had no mortgage).

I assume that if you loaned money to someone and they decided not to pay you you would not take them to court to get back the money you loaned them? If you deposited money into a CD and the bank decided not to pay you interest would that be okay? Of course not.

In a free market you agree to pay for the things and services you receive, whether it is a car, student loan, house, etc. If you make an agreement with someone (person, bank, evil rich fat cat, etc.) then you have to pay it off. If you can't or refuse to then you have to suffer the consequences (foreclosure, bankruptcy, not being invited home for Thanksgiving).

That is what an adult free market is. Not a one-sided one that you seem to believe in.

Mason| 10.11.11 @ 5:18PM

I should have said at least he didn't make billions by defrauding investors about mortgage backed securities that he was betting against the whole time, knowing that when the whole thing blew up in his face, that he would get bailed out by the government. And those mortgage-backed securities were handed out like candy because the banks knew they could bundle them, turn around and sell the toxic assets as AAA-rated investments, while betting against their clients. That's what I should have said. Sorry.

LC JB | 10.12.11 @ 11:56AM

Buffet's statement on income was dishonest. He was comparing his secretary's income tax to his personal income tax. He is typical of the very wealthy in that most do NOT take a personal income. They have imputed income from their investments and holdings, but that is treated significantly different than regular income.

Trinacria| 10.11.11 @ 4:11PM

"As far as how Kanye earned his money, isn't that what the free market is all about Trinaricia?"

That's precisely my point, Mason (and thank you for making it with such accidental brilliance)! That's EXACTLY what the free market is about - someone thought that Mr. West's product was worth $16 million and, accordingly, paid him an amount commensurate with the perceived value in exchange for the product (while I don't happen to share their view regarding the value of his "product", I enthusiastically embrace the notion that they, as consumers, are free to make their own assessment of the relative value of that product and make an economic decision based on that assessment). Presumably, all parties benefitted from the transaction (the consumers got their fill of indecipherable ghetto lyrics and Mr. West was compensated handsomely for his product). Given the remarkable success and efficiency of this model, does it not strike you as the least bit ironic that Mr. West would march in protest AGAINST the free market system?

How is Mr. West different from a Wall Street executive (setting aside for the moment the obvious differences in education and intellect)? The shareholders have made an assessment regarding their perceived value of the product/services that the executives have to offer and then made an economic decision to compensate them accordingly. You might not agree with their assessment, but you're not the shareholder/consumer, so your opinion doesn't count (just like my opinion regarding the value of Mr. West's product doesn't count). You can't claim to be a supporter of the "free" market and then support the imposition of limitations on price/compensation, for limitations by definition render the market something other than "free".

Now - turning to your Warren Buffet cannard (Mr. Buffet is part of the 1%, but he states that it's not fair for his secretary to pay more in taxes thanks to crried interest and capital gains "loopholes"). Again, the argument fails to pass the test of logic. First, Mr. Buffet hasn't argued that his secretary's rate should be lowered (a rather obvious solution if in fact that problem is that her rate is too high); rather, Mr. Buffet argues that it's unfair that he doesn't have to pay a higher rate. However, if Mr. Buffet were so morally opposed to the terrible injustice of paying too little, the solution seems rather simple - indeed, there is no law that would prohibit Mr. Buffet from assuaging his guilt by paying more in capital gains taxes. Curiously, despite his clear ability to do so, Mr. Buffet never actually availed himself of this wonderful opportunity. Mr. Buffet, therefore, like Mr. West, is a hypocrite.

Finally, with respect to the evil banks that are foreclosing on people, I'm curious - did the bank arbitrarily force terms on individuals who had no interest in accepting their money? Or did the individuals approach the bank, apply for a loan, agree to the terms of the loan, and then accept the money? Did the loans include a term that stated, "if you lose your job, or the housing market declines, you are no longer obligated to continue making payments on the loan."? Were the executives not legally obligated by the terms of their employment agreement to honor the terms of the loans that were executed?

And to think you're the one stating we're all missing the point. Pot, meet kettle.

Mason| 10.11.11 @ 5:10PM

Kanye bashing aside, I'm not sure you can really say he was marching for communism. He was invited to the protests by Russel Simmons, another 1%er as well as an outspoken leader of the black community, and just showed up. No sound bites for you talking about George Bush or the GOP or anything. Some reporters were there checking out the scene as well, does that make them anti-capitalist crusaders?

As far as this right here is concerned: "How is Mr. West different from a Wall Street executive?" Well, Mr. West did not defraud clients and manipulate the market, take a bailout from the government and then reward himself with a multi-million dollar bonus, that's for sure. Executives at the biggest investment banks have been breaking numerous laws without repercussions while making absurd amounts of money. Kanye West says some things that others find inappropriate, but I doubt you have listened to many of his songs such as "Jesus Walks" because if it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions you aren't interested.

Look, when I mentioned that the people that had commented thus far are "missing the point" I mean that this writer and several of the comments focused on the issue of Kanye supposedly being a hypocrite for making $16 million and then choosing to accept the invitation of a fellow 1%er and inspiration to the black community to check out the protest. And I think by focusing on stories like that you're not giving due attention to some of the issues that have caused this unrest. I understand the principles of a free market economy, but I have also been alive long enough to recognize the trajectory of development in this country under the course of complete de-regulation, and I don't like where it's headed. The widening gap between the wealthiest of the population and the rest of the population troubles me, as someone who grew up middle class and is witnessing the deterioration of the middle class so that multi-millionaires are allowed to become billionaires by taking advantage of the system. I think another thing that has people so upset is the lack of hope that anything will happen to change any of this. The fact that there are so many millionaires in Congress, whose campaigns are funded by corporations that are run by multi-millionaires, leaves me with very little hope that meaningful change is an actual reality.

I understand that capitalism is our best option, but we could do it more responsibly, with less usury and more accountability from politicians and the mega-rich would still continue to be mega-rich and we could restore the middle class of our country, which was what enabled us to rise to the status of superpower that we have enjoyed for so long. I just worry that if things keep going the way that they are going, my children will not have the same opportunities I did. Now, if you think that means I need to take myself back to school and get a finance degree and claw my way up the corporate ladder utilizing loopholes and taking advantage of the system to see if I can crack that 1%, then you and I will never see eye to eye regardless.

Trinacria| 10.11.11 @ 6:26PM

I'm sorry, Mason, did I say Kanye was marching for communism? I believe the term was hypocrite, not communist (surely even Mr. West recognizes that no communist worth his salt would pay him $16 million for his silly, simplistic, arm-chair ghetto philosopher rap lyrics).

Setting that aside, let's revisit a couple of rather confusing statements from your post above.

1) "I mean that this writer and several of the comments focused on the issue of Kanye supposedly being a hypocrite for making $16 million and then choosing to accept the invitation of a fellow 1%er and inspiration to the black community to check out the protest"

Interesting. Mr. Simmons has masterfully exploited the free market system to his extreme financial benefit (I don't use the term perjoratively, mind you, but rather to point out that he adopted a strategy based on the operative "rules of the game" and profited handsomely), and the "black community" regards him as an inspiration. Curiously, however, they aren't "inspired" to follow his example, but rather to bitch and moan and play the well worn role of the victim. One wonders, therefore, whether they see him as an inspiration or an exception (By the way, perhaps the fact that they need someone to inspire them is at least part of the problem...)

2) "The widening gap between the wealthiest of the population and the rest of the population troubles me, as someone who grew up middle class and is witnessing the deterioration of the middle class so that multi-millionaires are allowed to become billionaires by taking advantage of the system."

I wish someone would share with me these generous loopholes to which my fellow millionares have been availing themselves lo these many years. As a matter of fact, perhaps you could share with me a single specific example of a loophole that those of us in the uper income bracket are able to exploit.

I must say, today has indeed been an eye-opener for me. First, I thought my relative financial success was due, at least in part, to the fact that I worked my ass off to pay my way through both undergraduate and graduate school, put in 80-hour work weeks for over a decade, saved religiously, invested wisely, and didn't spend beyond my means. Now I learn that it was simply a matter of good fortune and taking advantage of the system. Then, after forfeiting well over 50% of my income in federal, state, local, SS, and Medicare taxes, and not being permitted to take advantage of the deductions granted to my fellow citizens (ever heard of the alternative minimum tax?), I learn that there are a multitude of loopholes that would have allowed me to become a billionare. Shit! Now you tell me.

3) "I have also been alive long enough to recognize the trajectory of development in this country under the course of complete de-regulation, and I don't like where it's headed."

Really? You do realize that the greatest expansion of wealth in the history of the United States happened to coincide with Reagan's policy of broad de-regulation. You further realize, do you not, that the current economic malaise (and, notably, the soaring unemployment rate) happens to coincide with the most aggressive federal REGULATION in the last 50 years? And (finally), certainly you must realize that the seminal event in the eventual collapse of the financial system was a FEDERAL REGULATION that required banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers?

Logic. Get some.

Mason | 10.11.11 @ 7:42PM

I never said that each and every millionaire is taking advantage of loopholes or did not earn their living. Congratulations on being a millionaire. And thanks for paying taxes. I also pay taxes. How do you feel about the low corporate tax rates that companies like GE and Goldman Sachs pay?

"And (finally), certainly you must realize that the seminal event in the eventual collapse of the financial system was a FEDERAL REGULATION that required banks to grant mortgages to unqualified borrowers?"

So the collapse of the financial system had nothing to do with the credit default swaps or bundling of toxic mortgages and repackaging them as AAA-rated investments? I guess that's why so many pensions and 401K's disappeared? Because poor people that couldn't afford to buy houses bought houses? You think the banks didn't enjoy selling all those bundled mortgages to the Goldman Sachs and JPMorgans of the world, but that they hated doing it and the government just forced them to? If the SEC would have actually done it's job and prevented the ridiculously irresponsible trading from happening instead of the regulators not touching the banks so that they could go work for them, then perhaps the banks would not have needed to be bailed out by you and I. Or if they had kept commercial and investment banks separate maybe the economy wouldn't have collapsed. How did that de-regulation work out?

How did that whole "trickle-down" theory work out over the past 30 years? Seems like wealth has trickled up. The whole greatest expansion of wealth in the history of the United States is the massive disparity in wealth. And I guess all the bubbles that have been inflated by rampant speculation only to burst have nothing to do with de-regulation? We are headed back to the Gilded Age of robber barons. By de-regulating campaign financing we have institutionalized bribery and corruption on both sides of the aisle. I guess you're fine with that, as the economy is on the brink of a double-dip recession. What would your suggestion be to prevent the double-dip? More tax cuts for the super rich? How did that work out for Bush II?

Are you saying you're fine with the way things are going and don't want any change for the country? I'm betting you're not. What would you like to see? Higher taxes on the poor and lower taxes on the rich? Libertarianism? Just let the monopolized markets set their own prices and say screw the consumer? All I'm saying is the business model that we've been working with since Reagan contributed heavily to the collapse of the economy and it doesn't look like that model is sustainable. Is the unemployment rate the way it is because those 9.1% are just lazy bums that aren't as smart and hard-working as you?

I don't think that just rampant regulation on everything and adopting a communist system is the answer here. I would settle for actually using regulatory bodies such as the SEC as something other than a career launch pad into the industry you are supposed to be regulating. Or legislating some campaign finance reform so that our politicians aren't bought by the highest bidders.

Trinacria| 10.11.11 @ 10:49PM

"So the collapse of the financial system had nothing to do with the credit default swaps or bundling of toxic mortgages and repackaging them as AAA-rated investments? "

Actually, in point of fact, the fate of the financial system was sealed the moment the government imposed upon lenders the obligation to lend to unqualified buyers. By definition, this created an onslaught of toxic assets, as it guaranteed an unsustainable increase in mortgages that couldn't possibly be repaid. Ultimately, it was destined to collapse, regardless of who held the assets. Had the banks not repackaged and sold off the assets, they would have collapsed themselves (I'm not arguing the merits of their decision to do so, but rather pointing out that someone would have been left holding the bag any way you look at it). Ask yourself this: could the banks have repackaged such a large volume of toxic mortgage assets if they were allowed to maintain the standards for loan qualification that had been in place for the preceeding 50+ years? Of course not; banks didn't lend to folks who couldn't (a) make a significant good faith deposit, (b) document a source of income that was sufficient to repay the debt, (c) make payments towards both the principle and interest on the loan at each monthly interval. In other words, these "toxic assets" wouldn't have existed but for the fact that the government, in it's infinite wisdom, forced them on the banks.

"What would you like to see? Higher taxes on the poor and lower taxes on the rich?"

By George, you might be on to something. Think about it, we routinely impose taxes as a means to control behavior - when you tax something you generally get less of it. Why not tax poverty and create an incentive to succeed - the more you make, the more you keep. Want lower taxes? Good! Get off your ass earn more money and we'll let you keep more of it.

"We are headed back to the Gilded Age of robber barons."

Sounds like the smart money would be on the robber barons, then. If I were advising our fellow citizens "occupying" Wall Street, I would strongly suggest that they might profitably consider the merits of being on the side of the robber barons (the food's much better over here, you know).

"What would your suggestion be to prevent the double-dip recession? More tax cuts for the super rich? How did that work out for Bush II?"

With respect to the latter question, I was heretofore unaware that the Bush tax cuts were limited to the super rich; indeed, my clear recollection is that they were applied across all income brackets (except, of course, those 48% of Americans who don't actually pay federal income tax, as it's awfully darn difficult to cut from zero).

With respect to the former question (recommendations for avoiding a double dip recession), here's a start:

1) Repeal Obamacare (perhaps the single largest impediment to hiring new employees among small and medium sized businesses)

2) Reduce federal spending and cease and desist from any further half-assed "stimulus" proposals that are nothing more than temporary political gimmickery with no sound economic basis.

3) Permanently lower the corporate tax rate (currently the second highest in the world)

4) Create a 3-year tax holiday on the repatriation of US dollars held by US corporations overseas (current estimates suggest that such a plan would create an influx of between 2 and 3 trillion dollars)

5) Lift the current ban on off-shore drilling

6) Close the God damn border and aggressively enforce current illegal immigration laws.

7) Repeal the mind-numbing list of unprecedented regulations imposed on businesses by the Obama administration

8) Repeal Dodd Frank immediately.

9) End the empty and utterly contemptable class warfare rhetoric spewed forth from the lips of the current disgrace in the White House on a daily basis. Leadership? Anyone?

10) Take your vote seriously and require that the individual who you entrust with the responsibility of leading the country have a rather more impressive list of experiences and accomplishments on his resume than "benefitted from affirmative action, was accepted to an Ivy League school at the expense of a more qualified non-minority student, served as a community organizer/rabble rouser, approved the price of dog licenses in the Illinois state legislature, served one-third of a term in the US Senate, during which time I authored not a single substantive piece of legislation". Additionally, require that the candidate elucidate a more substantive plan than "hope and change".

ys| 10.25.11 @ 1:26AM

slewing ring is a kind of comprehensive load to bear large bearings, because of its appearance resembling plate, so it is also called "slewing bearing". http://www.1stbearing.com

More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/11/im-pretty-sure-kanye-is-part-o

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|150 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|85 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|31 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|26 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.