Forum Post: The 53%, Erick Erickson
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 10:23 p.m. EST by Gr8Gatzby
(68)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Conservative activists have created a Tumblr called “We are the 53 percent” that’s meant to be a counterpunch to the viral “We are the 99 percent” site that’s become a prominent symbol for the Occupy Wall Street movement. The Tumblr is supposed to represent the 53 percent of Americans who pay federal income taxes, and its assumption is that the Wall Street protesters are part of the 46 percent of the country who don’t. “We are the 53 percent” was originally the brainchild of Erick Erickson, founder of RedState.org, who worked together with Josh Trevino, communications director for the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, and conservative filmmaker Mike Wilson to develop the site, according to Trevino.
The overriding message is that the protesters have failed to take personal responsibility, blaming their economic troubles on others. “Suck it up you whiners. I am the 53 percent subsidizing you so you can hang out on Wall Street and complain,”
If you consider yourself part of the “99%” or are currently protesting, how do you counter this argument?
Don't they know that there are people making a million plus annually who are included in the group who pay no taxes. It's a deliberate distortion of the truth.
hate to break it to you guys, but the "baawww my life is so bad" pictures don't inspire empathy. it just makes people think you are a bunch of moochers.
I'm not sure why ANYONE should be paying taxes directly to the federal government. The Fed is supposed to be a union of states, not individuals. I don't think the founders envisioned an income tax, anyway. All taxes should be payed to the states...let the states finance the Fed.
I'm all for the part of his message that champions personal responsibility. You can't afford a $500,000 home on $30,000 a year, and regardless of any "predatory lending" that may or may not have taken place, it was the prospective homeowner that signed the mortgage irresponsibly. It's the consumer's choice if they max their credit cards on things they don't really need.
The problem is, a lot of people aren't in control of their own destiny, like Erikson claims. People that've worked at their companies for years if not decades, only to be laid off because of irresponsible investments on the part of their company's board or financial team; people who saved responsibly but were outright lied to by their investment banker, and saw their retirement saving evaporate overnight by no fault of their own... these are people no longer in control of their own destiny.
Erikson can make a counter-Tumblr meme and claim that Occupy is nothing but a bunch of whining hippies who've never known a hard day's work in their lives- and he's wrong. Dead wrong. I think a lot of Occupy is people attempting to retake control of their own destiny, and demand justice for those who stole it from them. Because, even beyond the monetary theft that took place, isn't that what this is all about? The theft of our right to self-determine?
I work full-time and am a registered Republican with Libertarian leanings. I am a member of the 99% in that I recognize that our government has been bought and sold from underneath us by corporate money influencing our politicians over a long period of time. We have legislation that have been written by lobbyists, Supreme Court decisions that blatantly support corporations over American citizens, and a host of other evidence.
I recognize that a liberal group or conservative group will not be able to initiate reform by themselves. Attempting is doomed to failure as the other side attacks the attempt.
If we want to fix our broken system, we need to get as many Americans on board as possible from all ideologies and political beliefs. Only then will we have the ability to pass reforms that will be embraced by everyone.
This isn't about whiners. People of all demographics are joining to protest. If the members of the 53% do not agree with the actions of the 99%, they need to join us and help us steer things towards a more balanced direction.
Here's something, the NY Times wrote about this blog maybe you can get some ideas:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/99-percenters-and-53-percenters-face-off/?src=tp
The writer seems to be saying that the 53 look just like they are part of the 99
The 99% movement is trying to move away from "business" as usual. The 53% movement is just political name calling as usual. Become accustom to it. This is just the beginning. I think some people are certainly entitled to say that they made it through a rough system to success. I assume they are proud of themselves, and why shouldn't they be. No one would be occupying anything if the trains still ran on time and their was still a chicken in every pot. Moreover, having money doesn't mean you invented money. Who do these people think their employees are? Most likely children in other countries would be my guess. Look at where your computer, cellphone, clothes and shoes were made if doubt that. But, that's unfounded name calling, as well. My concern is corporate well fare. Not people who earn a living. We need to make a distinction and let people know that this is not the beginning of the looting and killing communist crusade. The enemy is not human beings, but corporate malfeasance and governmental corruption. There are few people who can disagree that those things don't sound like worthy candidates for the dust bin of history. Win them over with respect. Don't accept name calling as a legitimate tactic. Make them prove their case. They have to show that the 46% are a bunch of losers who couldn't walk a dog for a living. That won't happen. The 46% are the people who answer their phones and run their businesses, even if their rhetoric were true and the math was that simple. It certainly isn't. Of course, contests in the United States aren't won by truths, but by theater. So our theater, if we must have it, is to make them bear the burden of proof and call them out on it every time. Moreover, contact those that work for them and let them know what losers their bosses think they are, how little regard they have for other people. Make them hurt for suggesting something so outlandish. Make them hurt socially. Make them 'own' the movement they embrace. If you're one of the 53%, I'll save you a spot, you'll soon in all likelihood being joining the rest of us in this mess. Again, when the dollar slides hard, I'll see you in the funny papers.
More importantly, we stand on the verge of the dollar going belly-up. The 53% won't be rich (even with foreign holdings) if the dollar is worth a Ruble or a Peso. I was in Russia after the fall of the wall and people were still being paid, but they were being paid in monopoly money. As a foreigner, I was carrying around a million Rubles in my pocket in 100,000 Ruble notes. Imagine the implications of the government printing a $100K financial note. That's what we are trying to stop. The 53% percent are just those who have weathered this first storm well. The economic weather is still the same and they may find themselves on the ship of the damned with the other 99% of us. Ironically, we are working to try to save them, too. They just don't see it. For most of them it is a matter of time and I take no joy in saying that.
The myth of the 47% who pay no federal tax is the most cunning propaganda piece ever produced by the guardians of the wealthy. It’s a lesson in propaganda and how it relies almost equally on what is said and what is not said.
The 47% who pay no federal tax is such a remarkable statistic that it needs examination. All of my data comes straight from the IRS.gov website. They publish statistics from the income tax returns they process each year. The data I used is from the 2009 tax year, the most recent stats available.
When we hear that 47% pay no federal income tax, everyone assumes that this population is clustered at the low end of the income scale. That's how he myth is embellished by the claim that the 53% is somehow supporting the 47% who are at the bottom of the wage scale or unemployed. By examining IRS data, we can see that even millionaires are included in the 47% who don't pay.
The IRS data is broken down into 14 income categories. They are: No adjusted gross income/ $1 under $5,000/ $5,000 under $10,000/ $10,000 under $15,000/ $15,000 under $20,000/ $20,000 under $25,000/ $25,000 under $30,000/ $30,000 under $40,000/ $40,000 under $50,000/ $50,000 under $75,000/ $75,000 under $100,000/ $100,000 under $200,000/ $200,000 under $500,000/ $500,000 under $1,000,000/ $1,000,000 or more.
When all of the tax returns for 2009 were processed 42% of them resulted in no taxes owed. This is close enough to the 47% figure cited in the myth when you consider that the number must fluctuate yearly and we don’t have additional info. The interesting thing is that the non-taxable returns aren’t clustered in the lower income ranges. They’re distributed throughout all of the income ranges.
More than a quarter of the returns that resulted in no federal taxes were in the $50,000 - $75,000 income range.
Slightly less than a quarter of the returns showing no taxes owed were in the $100,000 - $200,000 income range.
Almost 7% of the non-payers were in the $200,000 and up income ranges.
How this is possible? The IRS data provides the answer. First, you have to understand that our tax code is built on a series of graduated brackets with deductions and credits that are available to people who qualify for them. In recent years, the deductions and credits heavily favored those with two dependent children, first time home buyers, and those with income under the poverty level. Another quarter of the non-payers were working people whose income at poverty levels was too low to tax.
By taking a statistic, which by itself appears to be true, and leaving out the details, the interests of the wealthy have been promoted at the expense of the poor, who are easily portrayed as inferior.
Suppose you are a kid in school. Except that in this school, you don't get to eat unless you win a game of baseball, and whoever wins the game gets to eat lunch for both teams. Knowing this, the most athletic bunch of kids in school has banded together to make sure that they win the game every single time, and then they sell the losers their lunch back to them at extremely high prices.
While it is possible to figure out how to win the game and get to eat lunch without paying an arm and a leg for it, it might also seem that the whole system which decides how lunch is divvied out is somehow corrupt.
If you call the school out for the injustice of the lunch program, you are likely to be called a whiner who refuses to become good at baseball. Isn't that tragic? Would you call your child a whiner for rebelling against such a system? Furthermore, is it not imaginable that there are even a couple of kids who are really good at baseball who hate this lunch system?
First, the 47% pay taxes: sales tax; property tax either directly or through rent; taxes on utilities, etc. In addition, there are government fees that we don't call taxes, but they are, and then there are Social Security and other payroll deductions that they pay.
Second, having so many people in poverty is a disgrace, and often not due to anything they've done wrong. Productivity is up but wages aren't. Many people have multiple jobs and are still in poverty. Advanced education is very, very expensive, and takes a lot of time that may not be available after earning enough for food and shelter.
I was poor a long time ago and it wasn't because I was lazy. I'm able to pay for all my necessities and still have play money now, and I know that good fortune played a role along side the work I put in.
Just what I needed to hear
Love to be helpful if I can.
Propaganda from the right has been so terribly successful at framing the issues in ways that encourage the continued draining of the middle class.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jmadison/28292/the-47-myth-just-who-pays-income-tax-anyway
His assertion is stupid, there are actually few people camping in parks across this country. But those people have been noticed by other people, most who have jobs, and employed or unemployed the same messages are being carried forward by both groups of people.
I love how you "53%" stick up for corporate CEOs who fly around in their private jets shipping jobs overseas. You act like a little girl trying to get the star football player to notice you. Guess what - you have such a small chance joining that 1% club that you shouldn't even try. Those CEOs sit around at their country clubs and laugh at how you vote for approval of their greed.
I 100% agree.
You don't counter it, you just ignore it.
Internet journalist dicks around on the internet. Big deal.
good point
Erickson, likewise, does not speak for the Republican candidates for President.
The candidates who, despite their sympathies for some personal situations, would definitely not look favorably on the picture of the man defecating on a police car.
I heard that guy was James O'Keefe. Oh, I"m sorry, I meant James O'Keefe III from Joisey.
It sure looks like his scrawny ass & bird legs.
Nor would they look favorably on the picture (or video) of a man stepping on a woman's head at a Rand Paul event. But they never spoke up about that, guess their mama's never taught them to respect women.