Gay Patriot Header Image

The self-appointed 99%

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 1:52 pm - January 30, 2013.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats,Occupy Wall Street,Unhinged Liberals

It turns out that they were predominantly rich – and white.

This will come as no surprise to those familiar with the hypocrisy of the Left and of the media, and as well, the role that the ‘rent-seeking’ (i.e., lazy) type of rich person has always played on the Left.



  1. Is there anyone really surprised at this? I think a lot of liberals mostly suffer from white guilt anyway.

    I also think they like to view themselves as charitable and caring, but they think the government should do it for them.

    Comment by Just Me — January 30, 2013 @ 4:23 pm - January 30, 2013

  2. Speaking for and representing the 99% is a job that only arrogant, close-minded asses can undertake.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 30, 2013 @ 5:53 pm - January 30, 2013

  3. Makes perfect sense… other people have to work for a living and don’t have that much time for nonsense.

    Mark Steyn used the term “big government anarchists” to describe these people. Fits.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — January 30, 2013 @ 6:30 pm - January 30, 2013

  4. Frigging trust-fund Babies never become adults, they can’t be bothered by something that actually requires hard work and responsibility. My qualifiers to comment are I’m on disability and I have a job, I like to work, I am honored that someone is willing to give me a position.

    Comment by Catseye — January 30, 2013 @ 9:53 pm - January 30, 2013

  5. Somebody wrote an article about this last year. They analyzed the arrest records of the Occutwats that had been taken into custody and other material. I posted it on a discussion board and the argument was made that they weren’t rich because $100,000 doesn’t get you much in NYC. I pointed out that a lot of them weren’t from NYC and even so, what you can get with your money was inconsequential.

    Comment by TGC — January 30, 2013 @ 11:04 pm - January 30, 2013

  6. I bet there are a LOT of people in NYC who would be glad to have $100,000/year. And remember, for the bracket we’re discussing, that’s a minimum.

    Comment by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) — January 30, 2013 @ 11:30 pm - January 30, 2013

  7. I could live quite comfortably on $100,000 a year.

    Comment by Paul — January 31, 2013 @ 12:41 am - January 31, 2013

  8. I could too, and in two years pay off my under water condo, move to FL, and take care of my parents.

    But those are traditional values, so they’re not in vogue with the left.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 31, 2013 @ 8:55 am - January 31, 2013

  9. In suburban Maryland, with three kids, $100K is barely treading water.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2013 @ 12:11 pm - January 31, 2013

  10. It turns out that they were predominantly rich – and white.

    Wait… How can making $100,000 to $199,000 be considered rich when you were just arguing a month ago that those making $250,000 a year were definitely not rich and shouldn’t be taxed more? Plus, note that this is household income, not personal income. I would have used that metric instead.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 31, 2013 @ 5:20 pm - January 31, 2013

  11. PS. Judging from the media coverage, I though it was already pretty clear that the large majority of protesters (though they really didn’t seem to know exactly what they were protesting for) were white.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 31, 2013 @ 5:22 pm - January 31, 2013

  12. you were just arguing a month ago that those making $250,000 a year were definitely not rich

    Really? Cite, please.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 31, 2013 @ 5:47 pm - January 31, 2013

  13. Hmmmm. That certainly explains all the iPhones, doesn’t it?

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — January 31, 2013 @ 5:52 pm - January 31, 2013

  14. BF, where you been? Missed you! 🙂

    And just for fun, before sf sidetracks the thread, let’s reiterate the point. The OWS folk appointed themselves to represent “the 99%” against “the 1%”. And many on the Left, almost certainly some in OWS, have criticized the Tea Party for its alleged whiteness. Well, it’s official now: OWS was dominated by people making $100,000 and up (not limited to $199,000), and by whites. Some “99%”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 31, 2013 @ 6:02 pm - January 31, 2013

  15. Really? Cite, please.

    I wasn’t meaning to be specific. Let me rephrase – Wait… How can making $100,000 to $199,000 be considered rich when the conservative argument until a month ago was that those making $250,000 a year were definitely not rich.

    PS. I’m glad you’ve been brought onto the GP team. Overdue. We may have our squabbles, but you’re too good a writer not to be contributing in this fashion.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 31, 2013 @ 6:55 pm - January 31, 2013

  16. I accept the re-phrasing… but, as rephrased, it does not touch me since I have never claimed to be a conservative or to represent “the conservative argument”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 31, 2013 @ 7:12 pm - January 31, 2013

  17. Fair enough.

    BTW, I also don’t consider $250,000 to be “rich”. It’s a good income, to be sure;, but, to me, that’s not rich.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — January 31, 2013 @ 7:49 pm - January 31, 2013

  18. Sonic,

    It’s a pyramid, man. [∆] The bottom 47% don’t pay any federal taxes and the top 10% of tax payers paid 70% of all the personal income tax paid in 2009. The top 10% began at $112,125 in 2009. The top 25% started at $66,193 income in 2009.

    Rich, schmitz. The issue is who is paying what in the redistribution of wealth scheme.

    So, in terms of percentage of federal personal income tax paid you are in the top tier of paying your “fair share” at a bit over $100,000 a year of adjusted gross income.

    Now if you want to weigh the standard of living of $100,000 a year in terms of comparison with $750,000 or whatever a year —- that is different.

    Socialists resent luxury and the ability to consume goods and services at a luxury level.

    So, should I assume you have some itch to cut high incomes down to size? If that is the case, state and justify your case. Is it no boat over 27 feet?Two cars max? One house per family? Full confiscation over $300,000? What?

    I don’t know what constitutes “rich.” I do understand the federal income tax redistribution of wealth bite. If there is a rising tide of redistribution of wealth recipients (and there is) and no concomitant rise in the disposable income of the payers of the redistribution of wealth (which there is) then something has to give.

    As a matter of fact, it is difficult to imagine that the non-payers of income tax have much of an agenda in the face of “illegal” immigrants who are coming here to work. But, if the “illegal” immigrants are coming here to get on the gravy train, then the future is settled. Only suckers work.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 31, 2013 @ 8:40 pm - January 31, 2013

  19. Compared to my income 100k a year would feel rich. I wouldn’t particularly call them rich, but somebody making 100k a year probably has some insulation from the realities of the current economic mess.

    Comment by Just Me — February 1, 2013 @ 8:35 pm - February 1, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.