Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The 47 Percent: Here's Who Pays No Federal Income Tax

Posted 10 years ago on Sept. 18, 2012, 5 p.m. EST by LeoYo (5909)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Terror and Teargas on the Streets of Bahrain: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (in the U.S. at Least)

Tuesday, 18 September 2012 12:55 By Jen Marlowe, TomDispatch | Report


Jihan Kazerooni and I drove past scores of armed riot police on Budaiya highway as her iPhone buzzed non-stop: phone calls, Skype calls and, incessantly, Twitter. I had wondered what the phrase "Twitter revolution" really meant when I heard it used in connection with Iran in 2009 and Egypt in 2011. Here, in the small Gulf Kingdom of Bahrain, I was beginning to grasp the concept.

I was in that country for three weeks as a part of the Witness Bahrain initiative, a group of internationals seeking to document and expose human rights abuses perpetrated by the regime against protesters and activists. Aside from brief spurts of coverage, the crisis in Bahrain had largely been ignored by the U.S. media.

Perhaps the lack of coverage of the predominantly Shi'a uprising against an increasingly repressive Sunni monarchy can be explained, in part, by this: Washington considers that monarchy its close ally; Bahrain is the home of the Navy's 5th Fleet, and the beneficiary of U.S. arms sales. Perhaps it has to do with the U.S.-Saudi friendship, and the increasing tension between the U.S. and Iran. Bahrain has been portrayed as a battleground for influence between neighboring Saudi Arabia (a supporter of the monarchy) and nearby majority Shi'a Iran.


The 47 percent: Here's who pays no federal income tax


By Allison Linn, NBC News

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is facing a barrage of criticism by implying that nearly half of all Americans "pay no income tax" and would vote for President Barack Obama because they are dependent on government handouts.

Romney was secretly recorded at a closed-door private fundraiser in Florida in May as saying: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

Pieces of the comments were first released by Mother Jones on Monday.

Just who are the 47 percent?

Romney may have been referencing the nearly half of all Americans (actually 46 percent as of 2011) who pay no federal income taxes.

The Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, released a detailed analysis of the group in July 2011, which NBC News.com covered in a very popular Life Inc. post.

The Tax Policy Center researchers found that about half of the group is basically exempt from federal income taxes because they are low income and also may have a large family.

In a blog released not long after its report, the TPC explained that "a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero."

The other half are zeroing out their federal income tax bill with other provisions, such as itemized deductions or the child tax credit. Some are seniors who are living off Social Security.

To be clear, the people in this group are still paying taxes. They are subject to payroll taxes for things like Medicare and Social Security, federal excise taxes on things like gasoline and state and local taxes including sales taxes on items they purchase.

Not everyone who pays no federal income tax is in the lower income brackets. A separate report released last spring by the Internal Revenue Service found more than 35,000 people who made more than $200,000 in 2009 also managed to zero out their tax bills. That report noted that it generally takes a number of different credits and deductions for wealthy people to not pay any federal income taxes.



Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

These people pay no federal income tax because they have no money! They have no money because their greedy employers refuse to fairly share the profits!

And, true, as the last sentence says, plenty of wealthy people fully escape federal income tax through loopholes as well.

Give me a break, Romney. You should never be made President. You are unfit to lead a society of human beings.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago

Not only do they have no money... they're most likely in debt to a bank that is getting billions of dollars in relief from the Federal Reserve and the Government.

These people make less than 26,000 dollars a year and most of them have kids.

Also they spend all of their dollar which goes into the economy. They pay sales tax as well.

What about corporations that profit billions and pay no taxes? Like GE, Boeing, and DuPont and the many many more.

I wonder what else these scumbags talk about behind closed doors.

Romney doesn't care about the poor and I Don't Care About Romney

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

All great points. And, they're paying usury interest rates as well on any debts that they have.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

That's a great link. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 10 years ago

these should be targets of the banging of pots.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago

the number is over 30

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

You are wrong - they have no money because they can't find a job that Obama promised to provide for them. That's the reason they have no money.

Where are the jobs. If everyone had good paying jobs as he promised, we wouldn't be having this discussion - people would be working, paying taxes, paying their bills and spending happy weekends with their family.

Instead because Obama didn't do anything to help the working class they have to work two jobs and are just making it.

Where are the jobs that Obama promised. He bailed out the banks with billions of dollars - why didn't he give everyone in this country $10,000 instead - it would have been a lot cheaper and it would have given the economy the boost it needed.

But no, his concern was about bailing out Wall Street - which by the way OWS is against - so why are the OWS agains Obama for bailing them out instead of bailing out the working class?

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

I don't give a crap about Obama, or blaming Obama. Wages have been declining in this country for 40 years. I know a recent college graduate who is earning less money than I did in the mid 80's as a recent college graduate. And, college costs have at least tripled. WTF is that about? That's not about Obama. That's about greed. That's about corporations keeping all of the profits and not sharing them with employees. It has nothing to do with Obama. This country has been on an economic slide for several decades now. We need a new economic system that puts the workers, people, first.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 10 years ago

Only the people can put workers first.


The FreeDA Cooperative Employment Service is the 501(c)4 organization that would assess the skills of the unemployed individuals to patronize it and match them with a suggested cooperative business plan. Upon acceptance or rejection of the plan for an alternative plan, the FreeDA/CES would facilitate the crowdfunding of the new cooperative business. Of course, each municipality of cooperative communities should have their own branch of a nationwide Cooperative Credit Union to handle both cooperative and personal accounts. With the FreeDA Cooperative Employment Service and FreeDA Cooperative Credit Union established nationwide, the unemployed of each city would be consistently channeled into either newly or already established worker-owner cooperatives, modifying the economic well-being of society at a fundamental level.


[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

Nice, thanks. I will look into this further. This is the kind of thing we should be doing. I use a credit union instead of a bank, too, which is something we could all do.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

'Democracy and the Pathology of Wealth', (Michael Perenti - Video)

Michael Parenti speaking about 'Democracy and the Pathology of Wealth' - developments in the U.S. political scene, the occupy movement and the struggle against corporate capitalism.

Michael Parenti is an internationally known award-winning author and lecturer. He is one of the nation's leading progressive political analysts. His highly informative and entertaining books and talks have reached a wide range of audiences in North America and abroad.

Parenti's writings cover a wide range of subjects: U.S. politics, culture, ideology, political economy, global imperialism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, free-market orthodoxies, religion, ancient and modern history, news and entertainment media, environmentalism, sexism, racism, ethnicity, and his own early life. For more information visit his website :

Finally, as per the first part of this 'forum-post', I encourage all readers to at least briefly consider this matter. Bahrain's 99% have been at the receiving end of severe repression at the hands of despots who would rather leverage Bahrain being the home-port of the The US Fifth Fleet than consider social justice.

fiat lux ...

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

Well, Obama is in charge - Obama promised the world to everyone - Obama caused the problem this economy is now in.

If Obama was less concerned about what the evil wealthy make and being more concerned about building businesses in this country the economy would have improved greatly.

But his rhetoric about taxing the rich has resonated throughout the younger generation who believed that that's what needs to be done.

Well if you haven't noticed late businesses aren't hiring and they won't hire if Obama is in for a second term.

You can't expect a person in business to hire employees knowing full well that Obama wants to take away his profits.

Very few people on this board understand anything about running or operating a business - all they know is what Obama told them

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

If that is the truth what you say, that businesses won't hire unless Obama is out of office, then people who run businesses are closed-minded and unethical. How about that?

"Obama caused the problem this economy is now in." That is very simplistic and obviously not true. September 2008 was when the Global Financial Crisis hit, 4 months prior to his taking office. So take that somewhere else. Go to the tea party sites with your blather.

[+] -5 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

Tell me where did the 5 trillion that he spent go? I haven't received any of it nor have you. But you can be sure wall street did and wall street is receiving more as we speak in printed money from the Fed.

Yah, that's really going to put the 47% who need jobs back to work won't it.

[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (23680) 10 years ago

I am no apologist for Obama, however, saying that he caused the Global Financial Crisis is like saying there really were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Also, I didn't think much of the stimulus program either, but what was the Republican plan, to do nothing, right? Who knows how that would have played out?

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

I never said anything about the "Global Financial Crisis" where did you read that?

If you want more government spending, more government bailout thinking that printing more money and giving it to wall street which by the way is what OWS was against then vote for Obama.

Then if he should get re-elected get back to me in 1 year and lets see how the job situation is in this country.

You can be sure that businesses around this country should Obama get re-elected will not do anything except try to survive because of what he has planned for them.

And don't expect the unemployment rate which is at 18% for the age group between 18 and 26 to change anytime soon. Why do you think he made it mandatory for them to be put on their parents HC.

It's because he knew they wouldn't be working that's why.

[-] 3 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 10 years ago

it went to save the world from economic collapse. I guess it was too much to pay.


country was loosing 750,000 jobs a month before it stopped, and now is creating some jobs, despite the wealthy, who are sitting and counting all their piles of cash, because the poor average american, has no disposable income, because his wealth disappeared in the housing crash.

Yes, it is not enough jobs. No Romney is not the answer www.voterocky.org

neither party will solve anything that is not in their interest, which is determined by who pays them and elects them, and it isn't "the people" who finance their endless campaigns--its the 1 percent.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

You know what - what you are talking about means nothing - it means nothing because 5 trillion dollars later we still have 47% of Americans receiving support from the government.

Explain to me how spending 5 trillion dollars didn't put a dent in unemployment and only created 4 million jobs when in fact we have 16 million people out of work or underemployed.

Where are the jobs from that 5 trillion - The banks did pretty well for themselves didn't they.

Now we have a QE3 thats going to do exactly the same thing - there is a post on this board that explains it very well.

Go look at it and then come back and tell me that what Obama has done has helped the working class - it didn't but it did help Wall Street and the banking industry.

[-] 3 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 10 years ago


The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office


[-] 3 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 10 years ago

bushes tax cuts weren't effective either.

And up through 2008, Bush was still convinced that his tax cuts had been good for the economy. “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work. They have made a difference,” Bush said. However, the record of the Bush tax cuts is undeniable: their enactment coincided with the weakest economic expansion of the post-war period, blowing up the national deficit and debt, while not bringing any of the promised gains.


As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found, “the tax cuts account for $1.7 trillion in extra deficits in 2001 through 2008, and $3.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period.” In addition, the extra debt-service costs caused by the Bush-era tax cuts,amounts “to more than $200 billion through 2008 and another $1.7 trillion over the 2009-2019 period — nearly $330 billion in 2019 alone.”

[-] 3 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 10 years ago

in 2011 $718 Billion went to defense.


but here's a breakdown for you on the above link.

or should I just put it below for you 2009-2011 Budget Outcomes Skewed by the Recession

Due to one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression - and the policies enacted to combat it - 2009-2011 tax and spending levels diverged from recent patterns. Federal revenues plunged to 15 percent of GDP in 2009 and remained at 15 percent through 2011, the lowest levels in decades. The efforts to prevent collapse of the financial system and to deal with the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the automatic expansion of programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps (which always grow during economic downturns to meet rising need), and spending from the February 2009 stimulus package together pushed federal outlays to 25 percent of GDP in 2009 and 24 percent of GDP in 2010 and 2011. As a result, deficits reached record levels.

It will take the economy several years to fully recover, and during that time federal revenues and expenditures will continue to differ from historical experience. However, the composition of the budget in 2011 largely resembles recent federal spending patterns.

[-] 2 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 10 years ago

"we still have 47% of Americans receiving support from the government."

that's a good romney talking point. He said it at $50,000 dollar a plate venue in Florida.


[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 10 years ago

where did it go? to bams friends.

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 10 years ago

Steven, why don't you try teling all the middle class families, who had their lives striped from them to line the pockets of mit and co., About how Obama is making them work for lower wages.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

Hold on - you mean Obama - don't you remember what Obama promised everyone when he was running for office?

He promised everyone that he was the man who could make change - he was the man who promised everyone who wanted to work could work - he was the man who promised everyone that unemployment would be at 6% during his first term.

And he promised everyone that he would reduce the debt during his first term.

Fast forward 3.5 years - unemployment is still over 8% - 47% of the people in this country need some kind of government assistance to make ends meet the debt has risen by 6 trillion during his term, and the middle class has been downsized.

And lastly Obama has made middle class work for lower wages because he didn't come through with the high paying jobs for everyone like he claimed when he ran for president.

He even claims he didn't know what the debt was when he became president - he's really in touch isn't he.

Where are the jobs he promised - he bailed out Wall Street which is what OWS was against but yet he gets a pass.

One thing you had better realize if he is re-elected you can be sure the debt will clime to 18 trillion or more - you can count on that - and it is you who will have to pay that

Remember when the debt becomes large enough where there isn't enough money to support those who think it's the job of the government to give them free housing, free school and a living wage - you will see rioting in the streets like you are now seeing in Europe.

Businesses in this country are tired of listening to people like you criticize their efforts to put people to work - and you wonder why they aren't hiring.

[-] 2 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 10 years ago

Your going to have to quit using the other pupet to beat people over the head with. Mit has to stand on his own martets and not the crimes of the curant people in office. Mits record peaks volumes on what he has done and will do to working families in this Nation.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

You know there is a post on this board about QE 3 and a video that explains exactly what I am saying - go look at at and then get back to me -

I am not standing up for Romney but I sure as hell am trying to convince those of you who haven't a clue as to what's going in this country that Obama is not the answer to job creation - he is the the problem and is standing in the way of businesses.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 10 years ago

Well we can finally agree on something. A lot of people are clueless and Obama isn't the anser :) But we have to start talking about the real issues in this country and who's going to fix them. Not who's worse. but who's better. And guess what? He/She is nether elephant nor donkey. Anyone who dosent pick a third party and do there part to take the percentage away from these a-holes Is a dam fool and responsable for the sorry State were in.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

What needs to be done is protesting the government initinating QE3 as a start.

If the country hasn't changed over the next 4 years you can be certain that there will be a big change in who will be elected and that will open the door for a 3rd party candidate - you can bet on that.

The people of this country are tired of government making promises, and spending their hard earned money on things other then what's needed to help them.

Businesses in this country are what put people back to work and that's what it's going to take to get this economy turned around - not more printing of money to temporarily shore up what will eventually cause this country to be destroyed within.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 10 years ago

I actually agreed with your entire comment for once. I'll protest with ya!

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 10 years ago

Bush bailed out WS, as well as enabling the casino crash they needed bailing out from. Jobs, manufacturing, and restoration programs have all been blocked by obstructionist Rs, they're holding the country hostage for political gain. Pres proposes, Congress disposes.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

Lets look at the facts:

Obama created 4.6 million jobs spending 5 trillion of taxpayer money. Out of that 5 trillion he bailed out wall street. Out of that 5 trillion he has forced 47% of the American people to depend on government assistance.

Just ask those 47%ers if they are better off today then they were when Obama took office and satisfied with the jobs they have and are happy receiving government assistance - see what they have to say.

Working two minimum wage jobs to survive and provide support for their family - that's Obamas idea of job creation - working two jobs and receiving government support.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 10 years ago

The pertinent facts here are that Rs caused the damage...

(the Bush-Cheney-"Denny" Hastert-Bill Frist-Republicons reign on our government and Laissez-Faire corporatized pick-up where Raygun left off, that led to the Enroning, 9-11ing and the Wall Streeting of America will cost civilian and military lives, homes and property, treasure and jobs for an indeterminate amount of years to come, more if (as in 2010) we let them back into control.)

...and they are perpetuating it for political gain.

The point of a hostage crisis is to inflict pain to coerce compliance. Perhaps this explains your blaming the negotiator instead of the perpetrators.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 10 years ago

So tell me Obama has been in office for 3.5 years - he ensured his voters when he ran for election he would change things. He would put everyone back to work who wanted to work. He would reduce unemployment to 6% in his first term. He would lift everyone out of poverty by redistribution of wealth.

So tell me why has this not happened? He "assured" everyone that he was going to do this - there was no doubt in his mind that he though he could do it - do you think maybe he didn't have a clue when he made all these promises?

[-] 2 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 10 years ago

Unprecedented obstruction, or outright treason.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 10 years ago

Repubs bailed out wall st with the Tarp before Pres Obama took the Oath.

Repubs refused to pass any Obama jobs bills, and watered down the stimulus plan.

You should never believe campaign promises. It's naive.

but Beautiful world gave an excellent answer so consider the economic structural changes we need to correct the greedy corp !% plutocrats who have outsourced our good jobs and stagnated the wages of those left.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago

Obama helped the repubs pass TARP when he voted YES on TARP as a Senator. Obama even reinstated Bush's Ben Bernanke to the Federal Reserve who gave money to the banks like he did under Bush.

Repubs indeed watered down stimulus plan.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 10 years ago

like the guy in charge is anymore fit........please.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 10 years ago

Private Equity and the 47 Percent

Thursday, 20 September 2012 10:07 By Dr Eileen Appelbaum, Truthout | News Analysis


By now, we have all heard of Mitt Romney's recent comments that nearly half of American households are moochers who are "dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them." There is a real irony here. The host of the $50,000-a-plate fundraiser for Romney was prominent private equity manager Marc J. Leder. The private equity firm that Leder co-founded, Sun Capital, has more than once driven one of its portfolio companies into bankruptcy - shedding liability for the company's pension plan and reducing its debt - only to have another of its units buy the company out of bankruptcy. Normally, owners lose their investment in a bankruptcy, but this maneuver allows Sun Capital to retain ownership of the portfolio company after having stiffed the company's creditors and thrown its workers and retirees onto the mercy of a government agency for their retirement income.

Just this past November, Sun Capital took Friendly's, the iconic family restaurant and ice cream parlor it took private in 2008, into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Friendly's used the bankruptcy to jettison the pensions of nearly 6,000 employees and retirees. Outrageous as this seems, Friendly's also sold itself out of bankruptcy to another affiliate of Sun Capital. A key part of Sun Capital's restructuring plan involved shifting liability for the pension plan to the federal government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

Now, Romney - at the home of the co-founder of a private equity firm that has the distinction of being the firm that took the most portfolio companies into bankruptcy in 2011 - had the gall to cast aspersions on, among others, workers whose retirement savings in private pension plans were wiped out, forcing them to depend on the government for their retirement income. These workers are simply collateral damage to owners who burden companies with unsustainable debt that plunges the companies into bankruptcy while managing to make a profit for the owners and their investors. In the Friendly's case, this appears to be a transparent effort by Sun Capital to take advantage of the bankruptcy process to abandon pension obligations and throw the workers' retirement income onto the PBGC while continuing to keep its ownership of Friendly's. It is surprising that Romney, well known for his time at the helm of Bain Capital, was unaware of the role that he and others at the fundraiser played in contributing to the 47 percent who he says will not vote for him.

Copyright, Truthout.

[-] 1 points by Karlin (350) from Nelson, BC 10 years ago

Although they are not the citizens Rommelly was talking about - don't forget the U.S. CORPORATIONS that paid no tax despite huge profits, such as G.E. ... Link> http://tinyurl.com/7pfab3j

And a note on "official unemployment numbers" - only 50% of Americans are even in that ballpark - seniors, children, the disabled, etc. Its the same in every developed nation. So, of course many of those don't pay income tax [some have huge savings and investments, but are not "working", and so they pay tax despite being "not employed"]

Stats are stats, not reality

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 10 years ago

This is all a bunch of crap, though. When I was a member of the 47% which many here insinuate are too poor to pay federal income taxes, 'I' paid federal income taxes - I don't ever remember a time in my life when I have not paid some level commensurate with income, typically then in the 10% range - so why are people not paying now? What has changed that those employed, even on the very lowest echelons, do not have to pay now?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

It's interesting that when Occupiers say that they're victims and that they're entitled to jobs and health care and housing and food provided by the government, that's not offensive. But when Mitt Romney says that there are a lot of people who think those things -- it's really offensive.

Mitt Romney:

There are 47% of the people ... who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government is responsible for them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.


We're victims! We're entitled to free government health care! We're entitled to free housing!

One is somehow offensive, but the other is not?


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Isn't Occupy all about protesting the victimization of the 99% at the hands of the 1%? Ah but you've already shifted it away from the 99%/1% conversation by demonizing conservatives. You're only worried about 50% of the 99%.


[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

I don't consider myself "right-wing" but I understand that your world view requires you to assume that I'm your ideological opponent bcause I don't agree with everything that you say. And I never said anything about the right representing the majority. I said that you are more concerned with fighting against half of the 99% instead of working toward the betterment of the entire 99%.

Are you capable of a response that isn't a rant about how wrong half of the 99% is? I don't think that you are.


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Right, that was exactly the response that I was expecting. You don't really seem to comprehend the whole 99% thing in the first place. You've spent months here talking past people and spouting "Repelican" hatred and you somehow missed the part about how this is about 99% of the population and not just the left half.

Your reply to this will be another rant about how wrong conservatives are. I know that because I can see that you're not capable of anything else.


[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Yes, right on cue, as expected. You're like a Zoltar carnival novelty machine. Insert a quarter and it spits out a rant about how wrong half of the 99% is.


[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

You are officially the most inept liberal that I've ever encountered. Bigotry is not a liberal ideal. You are terrible at the whole compassion and empathy thing. Are you sure that you're not a far-right conservative with a misaligned compass or something?


[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Yes, you're incapable of discussing anything other than the vile and reprehensible nature of the people who you hate. Even racists don't spend ALL of their energy on hate like you do.

I wonder how many other conservative streaks you have in you. You're kind of reminding me of the guy who accused me of being a tea partier for 24 hours before he started spouting tea party slogans without even being aware that he was reciting the tea party political platform. He was also totally preoccupied with hate and bigotry against conservatives, but he was totally unaware that he was the actual tea party supporter, not me. Just like you rail against conservatives while behaving exactly like a far-right conservative.


[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 10 years ago

you dont seem to understand the you and everyone but top govt officials have plans to subjugate you. the only reason the 47% video was released ws because of the murder of of the american ambassador in libya. obama & co were getting heat for it, so the 47% tape was released to change the news focus. the tape was supposed to be released in late october, just before the election. obama & co supplied the libyan with guns to help route gadaffi. those guns were used to murder the ambassador. this whole thing goes back to obama and jarrett. jarrett runs the white house. in the end, the plans for americans are for complete subjugation, no 2nd ammendment, no 1st ammedment. no nothing unless you're in the upper tier of the gang that intends to rule.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 10 years ago

What I find interesting is that a protest movement that advocates direct action seems reluctant to exercise it both legally and economically. We don't need to protest politicians when we can create the legal conditions upon which a politician will be legally bound to serve our interests http://occupywallst.org/forum/freeda-template/ . This is something that both conservative and liberal voters should be behind as both compose the 99%.

We don't need to protest economic conditions and the 1% when we can collectively provide jobs for ourselves http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ (FreeDA/CES) and eventually bring the 1% to an end.

Like someone once said, "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Yet people don't really seem to accept that.

[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

Yes, my experience at advocating the same thing has been the same. This is a group that's obsessed with consensus-building who claims to represent the 99%, but they can't handle the idea of building a coalition together with conservatives to improve our country. Seems like a gigantic oxymoron to me.


[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

what's a conservative ?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 10 years ago

You can't be serious.

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 10 years ago

pelosi said that unemployment was good for the economy.it gives people time to pursue their hobbies and interests. ( with the govt , i.e. THE TAXPAYERS ,paying their bills,.........food stamps, welfare, uneployment checks, medicare).

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 10 years ago

That's quite an extraordinary claim. I can find no such quote. Evidence please. The quote and the context.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 10 years ago

she said it, do your own search.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 10 years ago

You are full of crap. You're a liar and you're stupid. She was talking about healthcare. Not unemployment. Not even close. Your total bullshit comment is complete made up fantasy from your own imagination. Does not even come close to what Rep. Pelosi said. It's your own fiction.

From a June 28 press conference - a statement regarding healthcare:

'We believe it is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that people can now pursue their aspirations, depending on their talents, and again their aspirations, without being job locked because a child has a pre-existing condition or a fear of a diagnosis. They can be a writer, they can start a business, they can be self employed, they can change jobs.' Without fear of being without healthcare.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 10 years ago

Well said. Alva is clearly a republicsan who comes here just to take part in partisan attacks.

You got his number.

he's a liar, and full of crap. He should stop spewing it.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 10 years ago

I already made this point below. But I'll say it again in case you missed it. She is talking unemployment compensation as an effective stimulus into the economy. Every serious economist agrees with this. She even sites the multiplier effect. She is not saying that 'unemployment', people not having jobs, is good for the economy. Jeesh. What the hell is wrong with you people. She is talking about unemployment compensation benefits, the spending that it enables into the economy, is stimulative! Every economist on the planet agrees with this. Do some basic research on economic stimulus. The CBO calculates the multiplier effects.



[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

Partisanship and common sense can't occupy a brain at the same time.


[+] -5 points by alva (-442) 10 years ago

buttercup and kag, 2 "useful idiots" seperated a birth. take a look at the links that progRobo posted.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 10 years ago

I think the above comment by alva is suspicious. And Valerie Jarret said unemployment checks stimulates the economy which is true. Every serious economist agrees with this. Food stamps are even more stimulative. Because they must be 'spent' on food. Which filters very effectively through the broad based economy. There are actual economic measurements for various types of stimuli, and food stamps and unemployment checks rank very high on the list. As opposed to something like a 'tax rebate'. That was a Bush Jr. thing. Which is often saved rather than being spent. Not stimulative.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago


Quit your job and follow your passion because you'll have healthcare!-Nancy Pelosi

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 10 years ago

Oh I'm aware of that. She echoed the same thing in a press conference on June 28. But it is about healthcare, not unemployment checks as alva suggested.

'We believe it is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that people can now pursue their aspirations, depending on their talents, and again their aspirations, without being job locked because a child has a pre-existing condition or a fear of a diagnosis. They can be a writer, they can start a business, they can be self employed, they can change jobs.' Without fear of being without healthcare.

lmao. When the Republicans were for the healthcare mandate concept, before they were against it! Ha. They had the exact same argument. Arguing that it would stimulate the economy because it would encourage entrepreneurs and new business startups. People wouldn't be job-locked. Just as Rep. Pelosi said.

Jeesh. Even when Dems agree with Repubs, the Repubs still disagree with them!

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 10 years ago

You do realize that Obamacare isn't going to GIVE anyone healthcare....right? They are going to FORCE you to PURCHASE healthcare and then tax you if you don't. (Unless you qualify for a credit/subsidy to HELP you BUY insurance)

Story today-9-19-2012

"Six million Americans will pay the health care tax rather than obtain coverage under President Obama’s health care law, according to a new Congressional Budget Office estimate Wednesday — a 50 percent increase over CBO’s estimate of just two years ago."

"CBO also said there will be 30 million people without insurance, though all but the 6 million will be exempt from the tax. The exempt residents are a combination of illegal immigrants and those with incomes too low to pay income taxes."

Read more: CBO raises estimate of those hit by Obama health care tax - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/19/cbo-raises-estimate-those-hit-obama-health-care-ta/#ixzz26xWyCPzB

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 10 years ago

'Obamacare isn't going to GIVE anyone healthcare' - That's right. No more free riders. Romney's words when he was arguing for the Mass. healthcare plan. People will pay in, which will be their contribution to the cost of their inevetible health care needs.

And I don't know what your point is. This isn't new news. Illegal immigrants and people who pay the penalty were never intended to be covered.

'Signs indicate that some 23 million Americans will lack insurance in 2019, after key provisions of the law have been in effect for as long as five or six years, according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate. Meanwhile, the law would insure some 32 million people who otherwise would be uninsured in that year.'

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

The anti health care folks are getting tiresome.

Here, read this and if you can find it, read his book too. "Deadly Spin".


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

She was speaking of engaging ones passion for entrepreneurial spirit.

What were you thinking?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

OH - Bad question - now she will probably launch into some sad song and dance.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Even buttercup agrees, though it took her many more words to do so.

It's OK though, I think I actually agreed with Betsy once or twice.

So she's got this one coming.

Stranger things have happened.......LOL

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

LOL - no matter how improbable - Nothing - is impossible - Hey?