Create Account

Username
Password
Remember me
Forgot Teoti password?
Email
 

Awaiting activity

Advanced
Type:
Username:
Category:
Hot
Hot Random Sticky Scores Profiles
2 Days
2 Days 1 Week 1 Month All Time
This Month All Time
No Results

Visit the TeotiShop!

Digg Facebook StumbleUpon Twitter Google Buzz Favourites Email
130
qsysopr
qsysopr

I am the 53%!

23 comments, 340 views, posted 2:15 am 28/10/2011 in Rantings by qsysopr
qsysopr has 1281 posts, 119 threads, 28 points
The world needs a sarcasm font.

Great article from CNN

The 53%: We are NOT Occupy Wall Street
By Tami Luhby @CNNMoney October 26, 2011: 9:50 AM ET

Frank Decker has a message for those at Occupy Wall Street.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Occupy Wall Street protesters might say they represent 99% of the nation, but there's a growing number of Americans who are making it clear they are not part of the dissident crowd.

They call themselves the 53%...as in the 53% of Americans who pay federal income taxes. And they are making their voices heard on Tumblr blogs, Twitter and Facebook pages devoted to stories of personal responsibility and work ethic.

The number originates in the estimate that roughly 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The 53 percenters stress the fact that they are paying the taxes that support the government assistance the protesters say they want.

Kevin Eder was among the first to galvanize those who wanted to differentiate themselves from the thousands of people rallying across the nation to raise awareness of the growing economic gap between the rich and everyone else.

In early October, Eder created the Twitter hashtag #iamthe53, which has since been posted in hundreds of tweets as the backlash to Occupy Wall Street mounts.

"I would never identify myself with those occupying Wall Street," said Eder, 26, a business analyst in Washington D.C. "The frustration was born out of people claiming to speak for me who don't."

rest of the article here


I pay my bills.
I work hard to live within my means.
I believe in personal responsibility.
I believe that respect is earned through one's actions.
I don't want a bailout, I just want a fair playing field.
I am the 53%

Extra Points Given by:

Flee (5), Quaektem (5), griffin (10), Viscera (25), z0phi3l (5), HariSeldon (10), drickanderson (5), happyhollie (25), PiratePoet (25), bigwhiteyeti (10)

Comments

0
3:40 am 28/10/2011

thecrookedman

Quote by qsysopr:
... the government assistance the protesters say they want.


WTF? There seem like a lot of self-serving generalizations, simplifications, and omissions in this piece. The only clear and consistent message that I'm getting from the OWS movement is that there is something wrong, something unfair with a political and economic system wherein this happened:

Do some protestors want handouts? I would guess so. Maybe some just want greater accountability in the handling of financial reform. I'm sure they want lots of different things, but it doesn't serve any kind of dialogue to pick and choose what you don't like about the protests and hold them up as entirely representative. That's a straw man argument.

2
3:56 am 28/10/2011

Viscera

I know from those who I have spoken to about this topic, the real complaint most critics of OWS have is, why are they so concerned with others business? No one forced them (OWS) to take student loans, no one is forcing them to frequent banks they feel are nefarious, no one is telling them to do business with any corps on wall street they see as evil. What they seem to want, is concessions they haven't earned, paid by people who have earned their own money and are constantly asaulted in philosophy for it. When class warfare is wgaed, typically those who are impugned fight back

5
3:56 am 28/10/2011

Quaektem

Problem is, TCM that that has been historically true throughout history. The top 1% have always controlled the most wealth no matter the structure of government. What makes capitalism different is the ability of anyone to become part of that 1%.

3
6:30 pm 28/10/2011

drickanderson

Quote by Quaektem:
Problem is, TCM that that has been historically true throughout history. The top 1% have always controlled the most wealth no matter the structure of government. What makes capitalism different is the ability of anyone to become part of that 1%.

That is one of the most amazing things I've seen written on the Internet for a very long time. Bravo ...

0
9:44 pm 28/10/2011

thecrookedman

Quote by Quaektem:
What makes capitalism different is the ability of anyone to become part of that 1%.


I can understand how that is theoretically true, but I wonder if anyone has studied historic opportunity for socio-economic mobility. I would guess that since the end of the Middle Ages, it had been improving, but with US wages starting to fall and wealth concentration increasing, I wonder if it's peaked here.

0
11:00 pm 28/10/2011

Quaektem

I think the current system works very hard against allowing upward mobility. Between punitive personal tax rates, a litigious society and government interference at ever level of business it is amazing that anyone can make it nowadays. I'll make a post listing the wealthiest Americans and where they started to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

2
1:14 am 29/10/2011

Viscera

you don't become wealthy by increasing wages, people who become wealthy take risks, and aren't 9-5 clerks. Sometimes the risks are all financial, some times it is beinh willing to follow your dream and step out of the "box" and take the risk of entrepenurism

1
1:16 am 29/10/2011

Viscera

btw, there is nothing wrong with not being willing to take those risks and not going out on your own. But if I want the security of a union job that gives better wages amd benefits, then I can't complain that I'm not in the top 1%, cuz the top 1% didn't get there by being on a widget assembly line

4
1:48 pm 29/10/2011

qsysopr

All very valid points. But I bet if you asked most people, they aren't trying to get to the 1%. I bet most people would be happy being comfortable. While each person's definition of "comfortable" will vary, I would submit that it means earning enough to not have to worry about the routine things. For me that is (in order), I want to earn enough so I don't have to worry about:

- Having a safe place for my family to live.
- Having enough food so my family doesn't go hungry.
- Being able to afford my utility bills (heat, water, electricity, internet, etc...)
- Having a dependable vehicle so I can get to work.
- Being able to afford medical and dental expenses.
- Saving money for life's unexpected expenses (fix the roof, replace a leaky faucet, etc..)
- Saving for retirement.
- Can the family take a vacation this year?
- Saving for my kids college expenses.
- Being able to hire people to fix things around the house so I don't have to spend my time doing it.
- Being able to furnish my home the way I'd like instead of the way I can afford.
- Being able to drive a car I want instead of a car I can afford.
- Being able to live in a home I want instead of a home I can afford.

And I work hard just to get to the middle of my list.

0
2:33 pm 29/10/2011

Quaektem

Very good point.

3
5:13 pm 30/10/2011

Viscera

I can tell you that I enjoy life more now that I am out of the "rat race". This society has convinced us of what we should be working for. But I saw my father, a corporate executive take every opportunity to work instead of being with his family, and I vowed that I wouldn't do that. That's why I wanted to be the one to home school my son, as I didn't want to be the absentee dad.

1
12:14 pm 31/10/2011

thecrookedman

To repurpose an old joke:

1%, 53%, and 99% split a bag of 12 cookies. 1% takes 11 cookies. 53% takes 1. 1% says to 53%, "99% wants your cookie."

1
12:18 pm 31/10/2011

Viscera

and I think my retort was and is again, when the 99% show the talent, or the desire, or the willingness to take the risks to EARN the cookies, they will have them for themselves as well. But it is nothing more then envious laziness to think that because there is a bag of cookies in a room, that everyone present are entiotled to them. On a related but not exactly connected topic, I would be interested to know what the people on this site who back the idea of the 99% did (do) for a living in RL, and conversely what the vocations are of those who don't support the 99% movement.

1
12:22 pm 31/10/2011

Viscera

Quote by Matt 25:14-30:
The Parable of the Talents
14 "For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. 15To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' 21His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' 22And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' 23His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' 24He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
2
1:12 pm 31/10/2011

thecrookedman

Quote by Viscera:
and I think my retort was and is again, when the 99% show the talent, or the desire, or the willingness to take the risks to EARN the cookies...


I think therein lies the rub. Are people being compensated commensurate to what they've earned? And before anyone answers, I understand that the facile answer is "you earn what the market says you earn", I'm addressing the underlying assumptions behind that assertion.

What is fair? Is the system designed to be "fair"? Is the system actually operating in a way that is "fair"?

That is to say... at the most fundamental level, there is what's fair. Whether it exists objectively vis-a-vis some supernatural edict (religion, etc.) or whether it's a simple human abstraction, the problem is that we don't all agree on it, in whole or in part, all the time. So, on a second level, we come to some agreement via representative government, and "fairness" is codified in laws and regulations. Finally, on a third level, perhaps, we have the enforcement, application, and judgement of these laws.

It seems a breakdown can occur at any level. I'd expect concentrations of wealth and power to distort via corruption the creation and application of law such that a system may even be operating according per its design without actually being fair.

P.S. I'm a small business owner.

4
1:22 pm 31/10/2011

griffin

Quote by thecrookedman:
That is to say... at the most fundamental level, there is what's fair.


According to whom? Any judgement of 'fair' seems to be both arbitrary and subjective.
I would also point out that the purported purpose of our country and of our Constitution is not administration of fairness or the redistribution of wealth.

The Constitution says itself that is is "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

We have never as a country believed that wealth redistribution is either fair, or good, or in any way fundamental to our society or the running of our country. Instead, individual rights and the protection of property rights are the basis of our way of life.

The protesters apparently believe otherwise, but in my view they are mistaken.

2
1:44 pm 31/10/2011

thecrookedman

Quote by griffin:
According to whom? Any judgement of 'fair' seems to be both arbitrary and subjective.


Precisely one of the points I was trying to make.

Quote by griffin:
I would also point out that the purported purpose of our country and of our Constitution is not administration of fairness or the redistribution of wealth.


I would say that the Constitution is very much meant to enshrine what is politically "fair", though I'll grant that is perhaps a different question than what is economically "fair". And I was very careful to avoid the term "redistribution", because that's not what I mean.

3
6:06 pm 31/10/2011

Flee

Quote by Viscera:
you don't become wealthy by increasing wages, people who become wealthy take risks, and aren't 9-5 clerks. Sometimes the risks are all financial, some times it is beinh willing to follow your dream and step out of the "box" and take the risk of entrepenurism



So true. They do say 9 of 10 businesses fail in the first year, so 90% of these people might be a bit mad at "the system". It may have been the systems fault, but if people can succeed in the system, you can't instantly jump to the system as the cause.

Facts of life:
1. Classes will always exist. Who actually wants to pick up garbage for a living?

2. If everyone wins and there are no losers, then there are no winners either.

3. If you try to "level the playing field", you would have to hinder those who succeed and no one should be punished for success. Of course, they could be punished for how they achieved the success, but success obtained through immoral/illegal methods is not really success.

1
6:16 pm 31/10/2011

thecrookedman

Quote by Flee:
... success obtained through immoral/illegal methods is not really success.


I'll bet the illegitimately successful can live with that.

1
9:27 pm 31/10/2011

Viscera

Quote by thecrookedman:
o, on a second level, we come to some agreement via representative government, and "fairness" is codified in laws and regulations.


well here is a place where we probably don't agree, it isn't the govt's duty to regulate what is fair in regards to compensation, If a business owner pays his employees at a ridiculously small rate, the employees don't stay. They will hear about the better wages across the street and go there for work. And if business owner A pays crap wages, then the people of the town should not do business with him as a response to the unfair business practices, certainly his reputation proceeds him

2
9:31 pm 31/10/2011

Viscera

Quote by Flee:
Quote by Viscera:
you don't become wealthy by increasing wages, people who become wealthy take risks, and aren't 9-5 clerks. Sometimes the risks are all financial, some times it is beinh willing to follow your dream and step out of the "box" and take the risk of entrepenurism


So true. They do say 9 of 10 businesses fail in the first year, so 90% of these people might be a bit mad at "the system". It may have been the systems fault, but if people can succeed in the system, you can't instantly jump to the system as the cause.

Facts of life:
1. Classes will always exist. Who actually wants to pick up garbage for a living?

2. If everyone wins and there are no losers, then there are no winners either.

3. If you try to "level the playing field", you would have to hinder those who succeed and no one should be punished for success. Of course, they could be punished for how they achieved the success, but success obtained through immoral/illegal methods is not really success.


I have a friend who just this year, had to close his specialty food store and declare bankruptcy because of it. He doesn't "blame" the system. He understood the risks when he opened the business, tried it anyway. Now he is paying the price. We are guaranteed to "pursuit of happiness" by the constitution, not the guarantee of it. My friend was trying for a better life for himself and his family, the spirit was good, but the product wasn't able to support the dream. Learn from it, do better the next time.

1
9:32 pm 31/10/2011

Viscera

Quote by Flee:
3. If you try to "level the playing field", you would have to hinder those who succeed and no one should be punished for success. Of course, they could be punished for how they achieved the success, but success obtained through immoral/illegal methods is not really success.


That is freaking right on the money!!!!! Kudos for that perfect comment

2
12:06 am 01/11/2011

Flee

Quote by thecrookedman:
I'll bet the illegitimately successful can live with that.


Im sure Bernie Madoff would rather not be in a jail cell.

Status - Incarcerated at Butner Federal Correctional Institution; Federal Bureau of Prisons Register #61727-054; scheduled date of release: 11-14-2139

Add Comment

Log in via teoti, or register to add a comment!


Teh Nook • MayrHayasdan • JaranWeb • AngryShirts • GoneGeek • Eat Liver