Keith Olbermann makes $7,500,000 a year! And he speaks for US?

[jpgray]

Sorry for the copycat form of this, but listen: this is exactly the superficial, trivial, shallow, farcical analysis I am completely sick of and wish to banish to the deepest abyss. Your tribal hackles probably got raised by this thread title, and you're at this moment saying "it's different with Keith!" But that's exactly the problem.

Rich people can stand, and have stood, for the little guy. Congress does not. The net worth of its members, however, needn't have a damn thing to do with it. Mention the fact that they are spending up to two thirds of their time calling folks up, fundraising. Ask how someone like Chuck Schumer can amass $20 million from securities-slingers, or how and when campaign costs skyrocketed, or how much is spent on lobbying by the wealthiest industries, or about the revolving door that allows nice little legislators to cash in on their public service in the private sector.

Don't just point and say "look over there at that rich guy, he's pretty rich." It's idiotic.

Who would have thought, by this logic, that a quintessential Hyde Park Fauntleroy would ever betray his class? Seriously, just look at him:

[Hannah Bell]

1. net worth isn't expressed as "per year". That's income. Does KO make 4 mill a year in income,

or do his assets total $4 mill?

[jpgray]

2. The phrasing came from the thread of which this was a copycat.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/msnbc-olbermann-renew-contract/

The announcement came less than two years into Mr. Olbermann’s current four-year deal. MSNBC essentially tore up his February 2007 contract (reported to be worth up to $4 million a year) and wrote a new one, according to two employees with knowledge of the agreement. The new contract is valued at about $7.5 million a year, one of the people said.

Well I low-balled it originally. Anyway, I'll edit the title to eliminate the confusion.

[Hannah Bell]

3. So his compensation is $4 (or $7) million a year. Thanks.

[proteus_lives]

4. That's Fauntleroy's cousin also didn't let class get in the way of supporting the people.

[geckosfeet]

5. if he donated every penny of his income and net worth to fund democratic

candidates in 2012, it would be a tiny, minuscule fraction of the roberts slush fund money that is going to be funding republican campaigns in 2012.

If democrats are going to run effective campaigns they need to have campaign funds. That money has to come from somewhere.

[Township75]

27. Is KO doing that? If not...

what is your point?

[geckosfeet]

66. My primary point is - that corporations can give unlimited amounts without disclosing

My secondary point is, KO, even if he wanted to give that amount couldn't because he doesn't have it.

My third point is, the democratic party is going to need money to run campaigns in 2012. Lots of it. Cause the corpos are lining up to pour it in.

is that fucking clear enough?

[mfcorey1]

6. Please note that he does not object to tax increases for the rich. So what is your point? nt

[lonestarnot]

49. No point that I can see, but then who needs to see a point.

[xchrom]

7. shrug -- lots of rich folks aren't against what is good for the country

including raising their own taxes, being for across the board equality, etc.

olberman isn't the koch brothers.

[mmonk]

8. FDR.

He did pretty well in representing the working class.

[AzDar]

9. El Self-Deleto was here...

;)

[w8liftinglady]

12. and John Kerry...I believe he has a few coins,so did the Kennedys-greedy bastards

It is a morality issue.People CAN be rich and moral.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Who cares? Does he have to be poor to be credible?

When did we get the idea that rich always equals bad? Sheesh.

[DaveinJapan]

11. I rec'ed but it's still at zero...

Amazing what kind of people are on board here, that this gets shot into the ground.

I'm beginning to think the un-rec feature DOES have its' uses (as long as the management is paying close attention).



fwiw, I try to keep in the spirit of the thing...I rarely un-rec anything but when I do I SAY SO, along with my reasoning.

That's out there and transparent, and anyone can chime in and tell me why I'm mistaken.

Any of you cowards who un-recced this care to say anything?

I sure hope so...this is a very fair topic and deserves credit, not distain!

[inna]

17. there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9588878&mesg_id=9589216


(unrec'd after reading your post. It is silly, to say the least, to assert that people who unrec'd this - or any other - thread are "cowards". It is also slightly uncivil.)

[DaveinJapan]

23. They're cowards if they do so without comment...

and you unrec the thread because of some comment someone ELSE made?

Well, that's just silly. But, you can do whatever you want I guess. Thanks for at least mentioning why.

[inna]

38. unreccing without a comment is no more "cowardly" than reccing without a comment.

In case of my particular unrec on this thread, it was your absurd complaining about unrecs earlier in the thread that served as a reminder to unrec. Btw, since you asked, I included a link to my post pointing out why the OP was unrec-worthy (or at least, rec-unworthy, lol). :o

[Upton]

41. You start calling others "cowards"

then you've earned an unrec from me..

[DaveinJapan]

69. Maybe you should put "unrec individual posts" into the suggestion box then. nt

[Codeine]

60. People rec without comment all day.

Does that bug you? There is nothing "cowardly" about unreccing a thread sans comment.

[TBF]

13. It's not personal -

yes there are going to be individuals that make a lot who are sympathetic. The point is that it is the system that is inherently unequal - and it is a system that needs to go.

[GoCubsGo]

14. Nobody speaks for me.

I speak for myself, thank you very much. And, I don't give a shit that Keith makes all that money. Good for him! He is speaking out, not speaking for.

[undeterred]

15. With that kind of money he belongs in the Senate.

[inna]

16. So, what exactly are you so vehemently objecting to?

"this is exactly the superficial, trivial, shallow, farcical analysis I am completely sick of and wish to banish to the deepest abyss.
Your tribal hackles"....


Uhm, why such passion?... Don't worry, the rich people can stand up for themselves and don't really need your "defense".

(I wish people got so passionate about defending the "little guy's" rights... :shrug: Talk about misplaced priorities.)



"Rich people can stand, and have stood, for the little guy." I think most people are aware of that fact. What's there to argue?

It's not lost on anyone that FDR, for example, was massively rich (and so is Grayson, by the way... not to compare the two, but to illustrate your point).


A much more important point, though, is the fact that the American Congress, as an institution, does not represent the (majority of the) American people, and part of it has to do with the institutionalized corruption/bribery (i.e., the method by which the Congress critters enrich themselves). Now, that should be something worth "getting banished to the deepest abyss", wouldn't it. :shrug:

[karynnj]

39. I think that you need to rethink what "represent" means in this context

It is true that on many dimensions the Congress can easily be seen to not be a representative sample of the all people who meet the basic criterion for the House or Senate. They are not just richer, they are more male, and more educated. We at far lower positions, people look at the resume.

But, that is not the meaning here. Each of these people do represent the people of their district. People vote for them to represent them. Obviously, all of them will have people in their district (state) who voted against them, but they are the people that were duly elected as representatives.

[inna]

43. LOL, and I think that you are not in the position to tell me what I "need to rethink".

How about you stick to believing in the myth of representative democracy in America; those of us who know better... well, simply know better. :shrug:

[karynnj]

48. I was not telling you, I was suggesting you consider what the word means

It absolutely does not mean the same thing it does when speaking of a sample. Your arrogance is showing here.

[BrklynLiberal]

18. JFK, RFK and even FDR were wealthy.....

Having money does not preclude having a sense of humanity.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Don't get you point at all. Keith is a media figure, not a 'public

servant' and he makes his money doing what we know him for. He is paid to do his job. Congress members are also paid to do their job, and yet they wind up gaining far, far, more than that salary while they 'serve'. Franklin was born rich, he did not become rich while holding elected office.
Personally, I know several rich people, a few who make Keith look like a tyro money maker. They are human beings, who earned money from their work, usually from creative output. They are all liberals, Democrats but not the 'centrist' type. They earned their money by working, thus they are workers and they know this. So sure, Keith is allowed to have lots of money and a voice to be heard, that is not a problem for me. The best activists I know are all wealthy or at leat dang well off.
So your point is that apparent corruption in elected officials is fine because TV stars make a bunch of money? Is Cheney acceptable because Sean Penn gets seven figs for a film? Is that what you are saying? What are you saying?
Wealth does not make someone alien to me. Sorry if that offends you.

[stray cat]

20. So all rich people are your enemy? Good luck speaking for anyone with a sign on a street corner

[dkf]

21. Yeah I don't get "hate the rich"... On the other hand hate the crooks is fine

[blondeatlast]

22. Recced but still at zero--I think folks are missing the point here. nt

[DaveinJapan]

25. Agreed. nt

[polmaven]

42. You're right...

I think people are reading it wrong. The OP is, IMO, trying to point out that KO's income does NOT mean he cannot speak for us. The nuance may be a little too deep, though.

PEOPLE: The OP is trying to point out that people who are saying the rich cannot empathize are wrong!!!! S/he is not putting KO down!

[kctim]

24. Pretty hypocritical isn't it

People "say" they care about the homeless, but yet they have multiple homes worth millions. People "say" they care about hunger, but yet they live off seven course meals every day of the week. People "say" they care about health care for all, but yet they happily pay more than top dollar for themselves while keeping their millions in the bank.
People "say" they support alot of things, funny how they never support it to use their own money though.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. You illustrate the OP's point beautifully. -nt

[mod mom]

26. He speaks for me. I judge a person on where they stand on issues & their action instead

of their income. :eyes:

[karynnj]

28. I absolutely agree with you

There are Congress people who vote their economic interest and some who may well have become wealthy because they were Congressmen.

Here is a 2004 clip, where both Teresa Heinz Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards both answered this incredibly well. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=628737n&tag=related;photovideo

[Dappleganger]

30. Does he make his money off the backs of US taxpayers, insider trading secrets and his rich buddy

connections? If that is the case, post your evidence here------->

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. I take my cues from poor people... like Jon Stewart

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. Rec. This exposes, among other things, a common right-wing trolling tactic:

1. Famous person says something the right wing doesn't like
2. RW troll quickly looks up how rich that person is
3. RW troll shouts "He's rich and therefore a hypocrite! Don't listen to him!"

It pisses me off.

[jpgray]

36. Our leaders can't all be fugitive guerillas, right?

:D

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Ask Mr. Quagmire a few posts above. He seems to think they have to be.

:eyes:

[kctim]

51. Funny

What pisses me off are people who have to resort to the tired old "right-wing troll" tactic everytime they can't argue with facts.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

63. "Facts"

[jpgray]

33. --So this thread got a little weird--

This was a response to some of the threads making the rounds about the relative wealth of Congresspeople, wherein about half of our representatives are millionaires, etc. Some of the responses were completely baffling to me in their "this proves...!" enthusiasm, and then when I saw that Olbermann had cited this, and some of the response in that thread, I thought using the same logic on Olbermann might have some value. Not because he never cares about the little guy, but because it shows the charge proves nothing.

If you're going to posit corruption or bias, wealth alone doesn't get you there. Therefore my OP is not intended as a slam on Olbermann, nor as a love letter to rich people / income inequality.

There are endless ways of highlighting the class bias in Congress, but simple wealth measurement is not a good one, and in many cases leads you far from your point of inquiry. Alan Grayson could spare a dime, in other words.

Another fact that has been much ballyhooed is the neophyte status of many GOP freshmen in the House. Again, this takes a superficial fact over an in-depth analysis to allude that they are ignorant. They are! Not having held elected office, though, proves nothing whatever. Wellstone held no office before his election to the Senate in '90, after all. And again, there's no need to go for the superficial to have evidence of GOP Congress members' ignorance. Yeah, Mr. X might not have a passport, but he's also misquoting Jefferson and knows nothing about economics. Which are the relevant facts there?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Yep. Moreover, that idiocy exposes us to the trolling tactic I describe just above. -nt

[jpgray]

45. Al Gore's house is huge, you know

:patriot:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

64. And Obama sends his kids to a private school. The horror!

I even remember a troll (an extremely RW one) at DU complaining about the gas used by his Secret Service escort cars. I kid you not.

Now, a cool picture to cheer you up: a race car with six wheels!

[Township75]

34. As long as you bash the right, we don't care WTF you do

You can promote a 3rd party candidate to beat Gore, give us Bush, then make tens of millions of dollars from us bashing Bush because we will love what you say.

You can attack the rich, corporations, the lack of compassion from the rich, rich legislature and make millions yourself, and we will love you because you bash the right.

As long as you Bash the right, you can do what you want...we love you. Even if you need to have a contract worth 7.5 million while others in the news industry lose their jobs due to lack of profitability.

[blindpig]

35. A big K&R.

This can be said of most 'public intellectuals', the entire 'disinformation industry' and the entire political class.

It is all about class, these times of accelerated class warfare are bringing this into sharp relief.

[inna]

47. LOL, the OP was actually "defending" the rich folks in Congress.

(As if they need his "defense". :shrug: )

The thread title was meant as, uh, satire by the OP.

[blindpig]

55. Well, got me.

That went right over my class conscious head. Should have remembered that this was Democratic Underground. And that speaks volumes.

Unfucking believable.

[jpgray]

56. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at you two

Since you understand the OP now, would you kindly post the part of it where I defend Congress for their class warfare? It would seem I spend the entire thread doing exactly the opposite, merely pointing out the fact that wealth alone is a poor measure for identifying the worst legislators on destroying the working class.

[blindpig]

61. They are all wealthy, marginally at least

The relative difference is irrelevant, it is fair to say the are all on the same team, and it ain't ours. The few who are not are equally irrelevant, the machine grinds on and they make a 'principled statement, farts in the wind which affect nothing.

But yeah, I grossly misread your post, not having seen the thread you are referring to has something to do with it.

[devilgrrl]

44. self-delete

eom

[jillan]

46. Maybe he does - but he also sets up Free Healthcare Clinics - makes large donations to

Progressive causes --- and yes, even progressive candidates.

If it takes 7,500,000 to have someone like Keith on the air - so be it. At least we know he votes with his money.

Just because someone is well-off doesn't mean they don't speak for us - haha - look at the RW Pinata, Soros. He invests in Democrats, including democratic PACS.

People can be wealthy and use their wealth to help everyday people. Which is what Keith does.

[Janeiro]

50. Bad logic

Should he become poor or middle class on purpose in order to feel our pain?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. Whoa, that was fast. Sock puppet?

[Poll_Blind]

52. Rec but doesn't appeared to have changed things. I do agree with you.

I've worked pretty closely with a few people who more than technically qualified as "millionaires" and they are the same people I am, having spent a lot of time in and out of work with them.

Then again, one of my friends in real life is almost as poor as a pauper but behaves as selfishly or (whatever) as one's worst stereotype of an "uncaring millionaire".

I normally don't mention this here because people here bring all kinds of experiences to the discussion table and their opinion of financial worth, and what that implies, is usually a pretty strong one.

Also, I'm not really sure my experiences are necessarily a reflection of a more universal truth. For instance, I've also had to work closely with people with Ph. D's and almost all of them struck me as incurious, mostly-overbearing assholes. LOL.

So, again, you just really never know.

I try, and sometimes fail (but I still try), to focus on the corporations that are actively attacking our country. Those are run by the millionaires who need a spanking.

PB

[jpgray]

53. Yep. Heroes and villains don't separate neatly into hard hats and silk hats

I never thought so many would misread the thread as a love letter to rich people, a hate mail to Olbermann, or a defense of Congress. None of this was intended, so I'm glad it was clear to some at least.

:hi:

[Gold Metal Flake]

54. Recced, still at zero.

[jpgray]

57. This is really dumbfounding to me

How can anyone read the thread and believe it is a love letter to rich people, a hate mail to Olbermann, or a defense of Congress? I'm glad some understand, but are these people reading the OP? Was I completely unclear?

Anyway, thanks.

[Gold Metal Flake]

59. Until recs and unrecs are indentifiable, like on Daily Kos, we will not know.

We can only guess at the reasons. This just encourages blind accusations and feelings of conservative infiltration.

[terrya]

58. I'm happy to recommend this

Because it's an excellent post.

[tosh]

62. I second that

while puzzling over the hubbub it has caused. :wtf:

((STILL at zero recs??))

[Greyhound]

67. KO is hardly comparable with any of the vast family fortunes of the Roosevelts Kennedys,

Heinz-Kerrys, etc.

But I do think you will admit that Teddy & Franklin were very rare exceptions to the rule, wouldn't you?

[jpgray]

68. There is no lack of Meg Whitmans in the world

That's indisputable, but she is terrible not so much as she is wealthy, but as she glorifies the predatory and wasteful impulses of society. For contrast, we might consider Joe the Plumber, who buys into the same ideas, so to speak, with negligible wealth. Contempt for the poor, for the working people, can derive as easily from pursuit of wasteful advantage as from the defense of it. Now whose motive is more compelling is open to debate, but the influence of wealth is at least less than decisive.

[AndrewP]

70. But Global warming can't be true because Al Gore flies too much!

Think of all the damage to the ozone layer when he flies! So therefore, his speeches about global warming are all wrong!!!!!



**Sigh** It's annoying, isn't it?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

73. THAT is exactly it.

Seen in this very thread.

[maryf]

71. k&r

[pgodbold]

72. Yes. $7,500,000 and he speaks for me. You got a problem with that? nt