Occupy Wall Street protesters: The 99% aren't all unemployed liberals | Mail Online
Nearly 15 per cent earn between $50,000 and $80,000 per year, and 13 per cent earn above $75,000.
That said, the percentage of the super rich in the protest somewhat mirrors that of the country as a whole, as only two per cent earn over $150,000.
Participants: The survey was compiled from 1,6,19 responses submitted online at the movement's website throughout the day of October 5
As with all stereotypes, there is a certain degree of truth- or in this case, 70 per cent, as that is the amount that earn less than $50,000.
Half of those surveyed are employed full time, and 20 per cent work part time. Of the remaining 30 per cent, nearly half- 13.1 per cent- identified as unemployed.
Again, this number isn't far off from the national figure, as the unemployment rate still hovers around nine per cent.
Lastly, the participants don't like to be stuck to the political poles, as only 27.3 per cent consider themselves Democrats and the remaining 70 per cent are independents.
Not surprisingly, only 2.4 per cent identified as Republicans
Read more: Occupy Wall Street protesters: The 99% aren't all unemployed liberals | Mail Online
Hmmm....A surprisingly astute vision of things to come from the 08 election.
Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code - socialist code.
IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism
During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.
It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
In the past, such rhetoric was just that - rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.
In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).
Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" - a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.
It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.
Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism - Latest Headlines - Investors.com
Oh absolutely! Socialism is always for the people, Never the Socialist. A cursory knowledge of Marxist theory, and examples of Socialist governments throughout the years shows us that the initial struggle between the proletariat and Bourgeoisie only serves for the Marxist to gain control of the levers of power where they can become the Bourgeoisie and loot the country at the suckers expense.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Here are the actual numbers:
"Numbers crunched by the Tax Policy Center show that when you add up the various tax incentives (like mortgage interest deductions, child credits, and deductions for charitable giving) doled out by the U.S. government, top earners end up with the lion's share of benefits. Howard Gleckman at Forbes parses this out:
Those tax breaks are worth an average of $275,000 to those in the top 1 percent (who make at least $668,000) and $1.5 million to those in the top 0.1 percent (who make more than $3 million). These preferences allow those folks at the very top to boost their after-tax incomes by more than 20 percent—more than twice the benefit of those at the bottom.
To put it another way, the highest-income 20 percent enjoy almost two-thirds of the benefits of tax expenditures. More than one-quarter goes to the top 1 percent alone. The bottom 40 percent? They get about 10 percent. For some, it may be enough to zero out their tax bill, but compared to those at the top, it isn't much of an increase in income."
Read more: Are Wealthy Americans Paying Too Much Income Tax? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com
Now, take those numbers and multiply them by the number of rich getting those tax breaks and multiply by 30 years and let me know what you come up with.
And that doesn't even include the corporate tax breaks.
Last edited by Catawba; 11-07-11 at 08:31 PM.
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
See, here is where I have a problem with this line of class warfare. Liberals often today talk of equality, and all this so called shared sacrifice. But yet when getting serious about looking at what to cut out as far as individual write offs, up come the big three, home interest deduction, child, and charitable deductions. But what is left out in this attack on the wealthy is that their deductions for home, and charity are larger because they have larger homes, and give far more to charity than anyone in the middle class, or poor. And in this case these deductions can not be taken away from one group and left for others. That is about the most unfair thing I can think of. Either do away with all, or quit crying that the wealthy have more.