The Occupy protest movements across the nation and the world are growing daily. Today I read an article in USA Today that some protesters that have set up camps in city parks are now offering food, shelter and medical treatment for local homeless people. These protesters understand and are showing that they have compassion for these homeless people - even when it is difficult and possibly dangerous. Many homeless people are homeless because they are mentally unstable or have uncontrollable addictions that require medical attention. Others are veterans who returned from the horrors of war damaged and unstable. Still others have lost their homes to the housing bubble bust, lost jobs or other sad circumstances. The protesters understand and want to help - but not everyone does.
Take a moment to read the article that explains the situation - then take another moment and read the sad comments associated with the article. The commenters are typical GOP - Tea Party folks who have no compassion for those less fortunate. You can tell they are right wing voters by the way they use the word "Liberal" as if it were a bad word. It's not a bad word at all - look it up. I have repeatedly called the GOP un-compassionate in this blog and I think it is important to show an article like this every once in a while to prove that I am not just making baseless claims. These people are truly selfish and heartless. It is their greed that have kept these protesters out in the cold for over a month now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Looks like Andre's contribution to your other post #72 is a perfect example of the right wing propaganda machine creating the tone of the dismissal of OWS. He ends it with the Republic is safe.
He forgot OWS went GLOBAL.
BWAAHHHHAAAAA, what a tool.
Lisa
It's amazing the efforts being made to say their protests were better than OWS. So childish!
"He forgot OWS went GLOBAL."
Yeah, so did Baywatch.
(yawn)
Here's a chart to show the differences between tea baggers and OWSer. We are the 99%.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/10/23/chart-tea-party-vs-occupy-wall-street/
Lisa
Thanks for linking to that ridiculous chart, Lisa. It makes the case far better than I have been able to here,as to how fundamentally dishonest and/or self-deluded this whole Sit In The Park "movement" truly is.
I spent some more time last evening down at the "Occupy San Francisco" squat,listening to most of the Sunday evening General Assembly. There was much passionate discussion about the wisdom of having placed the Lost & Found right next to the Free Box (which got a good laugh all around...I took it as a good sign at least, that unlike many previous Leftist movements, that Sit In The Park retains the ability to laugh at themselves). Happily, it only took about 20 minutes to reach consensus that it might be a good idea to separate them. The motion was then sent back to a "Working Group" for further study and deliberation (and these folk want to run the world economy!).
I was reminded of Abbie Hoffman's line about being an "indicted co-conspirator" in the Chicago 8(later 7) trial: " Conspiracy? Hell, we couldn't even agree on lunch!"
The discussion then moved on to a proposal to create a camp newspaper. Great...that's just what a bunch of spoiled self -deluded narcissists need; a vanity press! For a split second I time-shifted back 25 years to my Yippie days, and I was tempted to block: "Why are we going to waste hours and hours of valuable organizing time and waste scarce resources to publish a crappy newspaper that no one is ever going to read? A single blockade and mass arrest at the Pacific Stock Exchange will get much more media attention than handing out a bunch of newsprint that will go straight into the trash barrel."
I snapped back to 2011, and bit my tongue.
The mood was one of summer-camp good spirits and ideological earnestness. A young woman was doing a bang-up job of hand painting a large banner that read : "The People United Can Never Be Defeated". I thought (but resisted the temptation to ask): if that is true , then where is the Occupy Beijing, Occupy Tehran, or Occupy Pyongyang? A true child of privilege, she probably wouldn't have understood the question.
You know Andre, your comments really show your soul or rather your LACK OF SOUL. I can't believe I waste my time reading them and I'll never get those moments back. I can go to politico or freeper's net all day every day and get the same opinions.
yawn yourself.
Lisa
Dang, you're such a meanie, Lisa.
Let me guess; you probably have a "MEAN PEOPLE SUCK" sticker on your bumper too, right?
Andre seems to think the protesters are out there to make him happy and do things they way he would do it. No - they are there to irritate you. Apparently it's working.
"...they are there to irritate you. "
Heck, they could have stayed home and phoned it in and accomplished that much, instead of dumping all these clean up and maintenance bills on the taxpayers (but since the lower 50% don't pay any income tax's in this country anyway, I guess I can understand how it might make sense from a radical "eat the rich" OWS point of view to stiff the upper 50% who do pay most of the taxes for the bill for their street festivals).
Interesting to notice though, how the Tea Parties have saved the taxpayers money (being the main impetus for whatever minor budget cutting has so far occurred) compared to the Sit In The Park movement which continues to consume tax payer money day after day after day.
Those 50% don't pay income tax because they don't make enough money! How stupid do you have to be to think they should be paying more taxes when they can't even afford housing or food?! Plus - they do pay sales tax so they are contributing.
Defend tax breaks on the wealthy and corporations while wanting the poor to pay more - welcome to Tea Party Nation!
"but since the lower 50% don't pay any income tax... "
I hate when i hear that percentage thrown around...as if 50% of America is kicking back enjoying a free ride.
That number is projected to be 46.4 % this year and of that 46.4%, 28.3% will pay payroll taxes. Of the remaining 18.1% with neither income nor payroll tax liability, 10.3% are elderly and 6.9% are not elderly but have incomes lower than $20,000. In other words, all but a tiny sliver of Americans without either income tax or payroll tax liability are either elderly or poor.
Consider also that tax expenditures total more than a trillion dollars a year in reduced taxes and the bulk of those go to the top end of the income distribution.
"..all but a tiny sliver"?
Using your own numbers, you admit that about 35.2 % of American earners pay zero income tax.
Over one third is a "tiny sliver"?
***
"...while wanting the poor to pay more..."
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that I wanted the "poor" to pay more, I just said that the Sit In The Park crowd are having their little self-indulgent street party subsidized by the tax dollars of the productive segment of society.
That stands as a fact, and neither of you have offered an ounce of evidence that contradicts that claim.
We could argue Andre that the protesters are creating jobs. Someone is paid to clean up after them - if your claims are true.
Now - back to the issue of taxes. Don't you think it is a very sad and alarming statistic that 1/3 of American workers (these are people that actually do have jobs) do not make enough money to qualify to pay income tax?! They don't qualify because their wages, minus deductions (mouths to feed) do not add up to a livable wage. They are the working poor. One third! Tell me there isn't something wrong with this many employed people living in poverty. Meanwhile bankers and CEOs are counting their billions. This is indeed class warfare. And it's long overdue.
Yes, the law should be changed so that everyone has to pay something...even if it's only a few bucks...everyone should have skin in the game.
"...this many employed people living in poverty.'
Oh, so now you are claiming that 50% of Americans are living in poverty?
Why stop there? If you are going to just make things up, why not just claim that 99% are living in poverty?
(BTW: The official Poverty Rate in the US is 15.1%)
****
"We could argue Andre that the protesters are creating jobs. Someone is paid to clean up after them..."
1. No one had to clean up after the Tea Parties, they cleaned up after themselves.
2. How would you feel if a bunch of selfish and irresponsible "revolutionaries" crashed your house, stayed there without your permission for weeks, and finally left the place trashed and looking like a dump? I doubt you would find much comfort in thinking about all the swell jobs that would be created when you had to pay through the noise to get everything fixed and cleaned up (assuming you could even afford to do it).
Bottom line: even if the Sit In The Park message was 100% valid (which, of course, it is not...but just for the sake of argument), their tactics and actions are unjustifiably hateful and disrespectful of the rights of others.
The Tea Parties try to effect change through legal, democratic means, while Sit In The Park seeks change through bullying and intimidation: "We will continue to break the law, waste taxpayer resources, disrupt the free action of others, and just be a general nuisance, until you surrender to our demands!"
Let's call Sit-In-The-Park (OWS) for what it essentially is: Anti-democratic Fascism, plain and simple.
So you want them to just go home and stop bothering you. LOL. Not gonna happen any time soon. And you can stop trying to compare them to the Tea Party - these people have a real gripe.
"Over 1/3 is a 'tiny sliver'?"
No Andre. look at the numbers again. The tiny sliver is the .9% of households that don't pay income or payroll taxes and are not elderly or make below 20k a year. The other 28.3% that aren't elderly or "poverty level", WILL pay payroll tax, state/local tax, property tax..etc.
But you're a smart guy Andre. I'm sure you already know that as of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).
I'm sure you also know that payroll taxes are mostly paid by those with incomes below 100k a year. In 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. The majority of the top 1% don't "work" for their income.
Of course, the top 1% can (and do) stash a large part of their wealth in off-shore tax havens in the Caribbean and little countries in Europe, starting with Switzerland. How patriotic.
It's also worth noting that only the first $106,800 of a person's income is taxed for Social Security purposes (as of 2010), so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone (not just those making less than $106,800) paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes.
Now does that seem fair and balanced to you Andre?
Andre - "The Tea Parties try to effect change through legal, democratic means, while Sit In The Park seeks change through bullying and intimidation."
Andre (one day prior) - "The mood was one of summer-camp good spirits and ideological earnestness"
How comical. "Let's lay out a blanket, make a picnic lunch, sit in the park and be intimidating! haha
Which is it Andre? Are the OWS gang intimidating and bullying or are they earnest good spirits?
Come to think of it, didn't the original Tea Party center around the destruction of property? You bet'ch!
Bumper sticker...
The last time republicans cared about you, you were a fetus.
That line has been around at least since the early 80's. The best formulation of it came from Barney Frank: "The Republicans believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth."
Funny line. One would have to be an idiot to take it seriously, but it is a funny line.
****
The act of intimidation is the illegal occupying of public and private property, with the stated threat of not vacating until certain demands are met ( The bank robber who smiles politely at the teller and says "Please" is still committing a crime).
There have been numerous documented acts of violence and property destruction at various OWS encampments and marches.
In both of those ways (among many others)Sit In The Park compares unfavorably with the Tea Parties. That is just the facts, and there is no way you can spin that away.
That having been said, I am perfectly happy to concede that whatever violence that has occurred has mostly been the work of a small minority of anarchist dipshits, and that probably a majority of the "occupiers" are sincerely committed only to non-violent forms of protest. That is a very good thing, but that does not change the fact that they are, with full knowledge and foresight, engaged in the breaking of numerous laws and in so doing are simultaneously abridging the rights and freedoms of others (something else that the Tea Parties never do).
The idiot leftist activist that tries to throw a pie in Ann Coulter's face at a public lecture, is far less morally reprehensible than someone who throws a rock at her, but he is still committing an assault and trying to deny someones free speech.
***
"...didn't the original Tea Party center around the destruction of property?"
Yes, and as I mentioned here once before, in Ann Coulter's latest book she documents how many of the leaders of the Colonial protest movement at the time were appalled by the actions of the radical Sam Adams wing (John Hancock personally reimbursed the ship owners for the loss of property).
I wonder if you realize that you have, perhaps unintentionally, given a wonderful example of how the modern "Tea Party" movement is actually far more ethically sound than their Colonial forefathers?
"...so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone (not just those making less than $106,800) paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes."
Yes, it would, in theory, be a boon to the stability of the Social Security Trust Fund if taxes were raised to support it, but in reality there is no guarantee that a penny of those new tax revenues would actually go to the Trust Fund. It is far more likely that Congress would do what it has always done, which is to spend all the new revenue elsewhere, and just send the Trust Fund another IOU.
It is mainly for that reason that I would oppose any new Social Security taxes, and would focus the needed reforms instead on the benefit side, through things like raising the eligibility age, means testing, and a partial privatization option for younger participants.
I'm curious Andre, what do you think of the proposal released by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, being a practicing Catholic?
Do you find the current distribution of wealth in this country unsettling?
Andre - "but in reality there is no guarantee that a penny of those new tax revenues would actually go to the Trust Fund. It is far more likely that Congress would do what it has always done, which is to spend all the new revenue elsewhere, and just send the Trust Fund another IOU."
This is how i feel about large corporations. There's no guarantee that their wealth will trickle down. The gap in salary ratios of CEOs to wage workers over the last 80 years at least proves that. The gap continues to widen.
And for the record, i've never compared the Tea Party to OWS. I think there are more similarities than either side would care to acknowledge. I would much rather see that energy put into a specific act... Like a mass transfer of funds from major banks to local credit unions. That would get the undivided attention of the financial sector...and washington.
Andre - "Yes, it would, in theory, be a boon to the stability of the Social Security Trust Fund if taxes were raised to support it,"
No, no...taxes don't need to be raised, just everyone paying taxes on their full income (their fair share) like most of us are already doing.
So how do you feel about the Iraq vet critically injured in Oakland last night? And WTF is with the tear gas and rubber bullets against a peaceful demonstration? Peaceful protestors arrested yet none from Wall Street arrested? I think the shit just hit the fan. Sorry denbec about the foul language. But I can't find non-cuss words to describe this today.
Lisa
Lots of interesting questions.
Buzz on the street is that SFPD are planning to clear the OccupySF encampment tonight. I'm heading down there right now to listen in on the GA meeting.
Quick take on the Scott Olson situation: a terrible accident. Let's all pray that he pulls through OK.
Details are still sketchy and conflicting, but:
1.IF Oakland PD were acting in a legal and professionally accepted manner in attempting to disperse an illegal gathering,and
2.IF the tear gas canister that struck Scott was deployed in a legal manner and hit him accidentally, and
3. IF Scott was a willing participant in an illegal mob action, then I'd say that he has no one to blame for his injury other than himself.
Lisa's characterization of "Peaceful protestors" is an outright lie on her part (or an act of willingly blind ignorance). There is no shortage of video from last night showing multiple acts of mob violence and aggression against the police.
If you are stupid enough to engage in battle with riot cops in the street, than the chances are better than even that you are going to get hurt.
I'm not saying that Scott was attacking the police (I have seen no evidence that he was one of the violent ones), but the fact remains that he choose to stand with them. If he was caught in the crossfire that is sad and regrettable, but the fact remains that most of the factors that led to that outcome were fully in his control. He put himself in that situation.
Obviously, if it were the case that it wasn't an accident...if say the Officer who shot the canister deliberately aimed it at Scott's head, that would be a completely different situation, but we do not have any reason at this point to think that was the case.
A sad, tragic situation...but again, a situation directly created and initiated by the willing actions of the protestors.
It's time to end this irresponsible and indefensible mob activity before someone else gets seriously injured.
It's b.s Andre. Your take on the protests is fed by the right wing media machine and you need to take your tunnel vision glasses off and see reality. This guy fought for our country and risked his life for you and me to be able to assemble peacefully against the government.
This is our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT.
And you, you troll need to stop pretending that you are involved in this protest, you traitor of democracy. What have you done lately for this country? Have you risked your life for the citizens of this country and then gone to a peaceful march to be attacked by police? You hypocrite. That guy fought for us and you make these comments like he asked for it. Just like a republican - blame the victim. You make me want to puke.
Lisa
I hope that guy survives without any permanent damage. You can google his name because he's not some homeless smelly hippie. He's 24 yrs old and served two tours of duty.
Lisa
Lisa - anytime a gross injustice like this is done - feel free to curse all you want. This is an outrage!
"Your take on the protests is fed by the right wing media machine"
Wrong, Lisa, Unlike you, I have been present at OccupySF for the last four evenings in a row, observing and interacting directly with the participants. I've sat through the GA's and observed the behavior and demeanor of both the protesters, the police, and the surrounding citizens of San Francisco.
I speak from fist hand experience and knowledge of the things that I have seen with with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. It hasn't been filtered through Democracy Now and Kieth Olberman (or Shaun Hannity!).
So don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Everyone (not just Left wing radicals) has a First Amendment right to free speech and peaceful assembly to address grievances to the Government. That is NOT a license to break the law and infringe on the rights of others.
If that distinction is too subtle for your bigoted and ideologically twisted mind to grasp then I'm very sorry for you.
"This guy fought for our country and risked his life for you and me"
How shameless you are in the way you change your tune the instant it suit your political propaganda; a few months ago you would have been claiming that he fought for Halliburton and "American Imperialism".
His blood is on your hands. You and all the other armchair and internet radicals who have egged people like him on with your hateful politics of failure, envy and resentment.
"This is indeed class warfare. And it's long overdue."
Congratulations, Dennis. Your sidelines war-mongering has claimed it's first victim. Scott Olsons's blood is on your hands too.
Numerous Twitter reports of riot police and prisoner transport vans gathering a few miles from Justin Herman Plaza.
I could tell something was up earlier this evening when I was down there by the presence of three TV news vans, which hadn't been there the three previous evenings. Those guys probably have all sorts of contacts and informants inside the SFPD and City Hall, so they must know that it's going down tonight.
Heading down there now...
There you go, spouting your hypocritical 'blood on our hands' bullcrap.
I spit on you Andre, you traitor.
Every one of your words on this blog shows your true self. I don't give a crap what you think of me. I don't care for you or your ilk. Your views are what is wrong with this country.
I stand with the 99%.
"Today I read an article in USA Today that some protesters that have set up camps in city parks are now offering food, shelter and medical treatment for local homeless people."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL
"I think it is important to show an article like this every once in a while to prove that I am not just making baseless claims."
Posted without comment.
"Here's a chart to show the differences between tea baggers and OWSer. "
Here's another one. The good thing about this one is that it's not just a pack of outrageous lies like the one Lisa posted.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Where-the-Similarities-Between-Occupy-and-the-Tea-Party-End
Thohea:
"...taxes don't need to be raised, just everyone paying taxes on their full income (their fair share) like most of us are already doing."
Andre:
Usually when someone demands that "everyone pay their fair share" of taxes what they really mean is that some else should be paying more. They seem to just begin with the assumption that they themselves are already paying their share. But what if that's not really true?
Are you and I really paying our "fair" share? What do you base that claim on?
Someone made this relevant post on NRO's The Corner earlier today:
"People who have become obsessed with how "top heavy" the income levels have become, should be careful what they wish for. If the income starts getting shoved back downwards by whatever means, so will the tax burdens.
Right now the top quintile pays almost 70 percent of all Federal taxes, INCLUDING PAYROLL (caps added). The bottom quintile pays less than a percent. Again, that includes payroll taxes. If you're talking just income taxes, the top quintile is paying 86 percent, and the bottom two quintiles are in negative territory."
External Link:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13
Actually, Thohea, if you have the time, you should read this entire post (primarily the response comments)...lots of really interesting points, especially about the role that the huge switch to S Corporation status in recent years has had on distorted our perceptions of income distributions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/281500/how-make-it-america-contd-daniel-foster
Dennis should read it too (but he probably doesn't have the time). I would suggest that Lisa read it, but she is probably too busy, cussing, spitting, and puking.
2009: The top 20% pays 64.3% of all the taxes but receives 59.1% of all income, so they aren't carrying a huge extra burden.
But it's difficult to get exact details on those making millions of dollars each year because, like i mentioned before, they keep some of their money overseas.
Well, at least you are willing to admit that the rich ARE carrying an extra burden.
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the total jobs created in this country are created by that top 20%.
Combine those two metrics(taxes paid and jobs created) and I bet you'd find that if the top 20% don't in fact contribute more to the material health, wealth, and well-being of our society than the entire other 80% combined, then it would at least be pretty darned close.
Thohea (and Den!),
Right after I sent the above post, I stumbled upon this short video interview with Libertarian Economist Richard Epstein, who makes a very similar point (only much more articulately, and from a far more informed position that I could ever hope for):
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Richard-Epstein-Behind-Enemy-Lines
I think you will find it really interesting, and highly relevant to this discussion.
I love the notion Andre mentioned of watch out - If you get rich you will have to pay more taxes!
Bring it. I'll gladly pay it.
And, for the record, I do not strive to be rich - whatever that means. I just want to be comfortable and be able to pay the bills on my "normal" fiscally conservative American life. I don't think that is asking too much.
It is one thing to bail out the banks because it is in our own interests to do so, however painful. It is another to ask the middle class to bear the entire burden, while the bankers take home their massive bonuses, double-down on lobbying to keep re-regulation at bay, and have the Congress so wrapped around their fingers financially that the core trust required to make market capitalism (and democracy) work evaporates.
I think that something the tea party and ows can stand together on. The era of bail-outs needs to end.
"I do not strive to be rich - whatever that means. I just want to be comfortable and be able to pay the bills on my "normal" fiscally conservative American life. I don't think that is asking too much."
I don't think that is asking too much either. But consider this; what if it turned out to be the case that the type of economy and social organization that made it possible for you (and all the other millions and millions of people like you (and me) to achieve that goal, had, as a necessary co-characteristic,the inescapable feature that it also made it likely that a much smaller minority would get far far richer than everyone else, and that this small minority (lets' guess it would be about..oh I don't know, how about 1%?) would also grow their wealth (on balance over the long term) at a faster rate than everyone else. Sometimes at even at a dramatically faster rate than everyone else.
The question is: if given this situation...and this is just a thought experiment, so accepting the premises for the sake of the experiment is not an admission or acknowledgement that the premises of the experiment necessarily reflect true realities in the real world...would you prefer to see your own personal material standard of living (and that of all the other millions) continue to rise and expand over the course of your lifetime, even if that meant that the wealth of this other 1% would continue to grow at a faster rate; or, would you rather see policies put into place that limited the ability of this minority's wealth to grow at any faster a rate than yours, even if these policies also brought with them a far greater chance that your wealth accumulation would stagnate, or even significantly decline, over the course of your life?
I believe that , fundamentally, that is the choice which we as a society have to make. Either everyone prospers, even though some will prosper more than others, or everyone becomes more equally impoverished.
I believe that this experiment was played out in the real world in the second half of the last century, between the West and the Communist block, and it is still being played out today in certain parts of the world. Some places you see the experiment being carried out on a small scale, such as between different States in this country, and some places you can see it being carried out in a much larger and more dramatic scale (probably the most dramatic example being that of North and South Korea).
I fear that far too many on the Left are so motivated by envy and resentment of people who have more than they do, that they would willingly shoot themselves in the foot and destroy their own best prospects for economic growth and increased material well being, if only that would bring the "rich folks" down a few notches.
That seems like a fool's bargain to me, and even worse, one which embraces and empowers some of the ugliest aspects of human nature.
I have to shake my head and LOL when Andre uses JEALOUSY to describe Lefties. Are you freaking kidding me? Come ON!
Wall Street took bailout money to save their sorry ass from the crimes they committed and the President (Bush-f*) gave them a blank check with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. !!!!! No stipulations about obscene bonus payouts to employees and management.
What could we do except get ANGRY? They already stole 20% of our net worth (from our 401k s and real estate)! Where was our bailout from our stagnant wages, higher health care costs and GAS to put in the car to drive to those minimum wage jobs that some of us have? Where are the obscene bonuses to our group, eh?
It's not jealousy that makes us angry! It's that Congress is bought by WALL STREET and we are supposed to just ignore that? We have to just bend over? Really?
WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE BEEN KICKING ASS AND TAKING NAMES FOR CENTURIES INCLUDING OUR OWN RIGHTS. We fight back.
Congress (Republicans and some Dems) want to take away our safety net that was promised to us decades ago that WE PAID INTO. That being Social Security, and Medicare which is a Single Payer Health Care SYSTEM; and should be the envy of the world instead we're looked at as BARBARIANS.
Then they want to limit MEDICAID, Food stamps for the POOR and ILL, and we're just supposed to take it? Nope, not in this America.
We take care of the least amongst us.
But, We have no more unions to stand up for us and we can't afford our own lobbyists, so we peacefully protest because it's our constitutional right, you rich man boot licker.
How about investigating the crimes that were committed on Wall Street and the Banks and give us the satisfaction that they might find a few to go to jail instead of the protestors.
If those tea partiers want to think we're jealous about rich people, how about we initiate the DRAFT again so that the rich have to send their children to war because they are the ones getting rich sending us to wars?
Or, How about we stop working all together? How about a Nation-wide STRIKE to prove our point? How about that?
Jealousy? Bwahaahaaa. Change the freaking channel and stop rooting for the 1%.
You know damn well who wrote this, don't you Andre? That leftist bitch in Indy who thinks you should have ended up in the hospital instead of that vet in Oakland. I'm mad as hell now and if you believe I'm jealous than go back to licking those wall street barons and bankers boots or sign up for the military. Bagger.
"...go back to licking those wall street barons and bankers boots.."
Hey, can we please leave my sexual peccadilloes out of this?
Jealousy of wealth is and end in itself.
Mad at greed will help us succeed.
Those that prosper in an honest way have my blessing any day.
Those that steal and force us down will be brought to justice when we come around.
99% is a force indeed - we will prevail - we will succeed.
"The gap continues to widen."
But does it? That IS the conventional wisdom, but is it correct?
Maybe not:
Census Data show income inequality in the U.S. has been flat since 1994:
http://blog.american.com/
"...the factual record of income data in the United States certainly doesn’t support the claims that income inequality has “exploded” recently. A more accurate description of income inequality over the last several decades would be to say that it “flat-lined” starting in about 1994."
Andre: "But does it? That IS the conventional wisdom, but is it correct?"
Yes. Based on info from the CBO (which you've used before to prove your point), this chart shows the Inflation-adjusted posttransfer-posttax incomes. The
data are averages within each group.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/inequalitygraph.pdf
Incomes in 1979 and
2007: $15,500 and $17,500 for the bottom 20%; $44,000
and $57,000 for the middle 60%; $350,000 and $1,300,000
for the top 1%.
Thohea, first thoughts:
The Census info that I referred to is from 1994 to current.
The CBO info you linked to is from 1979 to 2007.
So your baseline is starting 15 years earlier. Not apples to apples.
The post I linked to agreed that income inequality was rising during that 15 years, but then claims that the trend flatlined from 1994 on.
Does the CBO info conflict with the Census info for the period 1994 to 2010?
I don't know, I haven't had time to check(and won't for awhile).
Maybe later(ugh,numbers.. my head is hurting already).
Post a Comment