So its basically a mid life crisis, female hippie style.

I'm guessing her family might be better off without her.

Too bad for her four minor children. Since she plans to abandon them 'forever,' I hope her husband has an excellent divorce attorney.

and I love that she named her youngest after the bratty, self-centered daughter in "Mildred Pierce". just a little irony there.

Its the "man" that payed for the clothes on her a$$ and her fancy coach handbag! Grow the bleep up u DC and take care of ur children b4 they grow up robbing and addicted to drugs!

She's a worthless bitch. If he's smart, he'll drop her hippie ass and then she'll have to get a job.

Nice cherry-picking, Amy. This is a far more typical Occupy Wall Street story:

http://occupywallst.org/article/parents-sleepover/

ROFL Slo, I was about to type "Mid life crisis" and saw you posted it first!

Wow. I hope Florida's a non-alimony state, and he checks the "abandonment" box on the divorce paperwork.

oh brother. Well at least she's on record. That should help the dad when time comes for a custody decision.

I hope he drew up a good pre-nup before he married her.

Sorry Amy, I gotta disagree with you here. This woman has every right to abandon her family. It's horrible and reprehensible and incredibly immature of her, and she is not a good mother for doing it. But that doesn't mean that she "can't" or that she "doesn't get to". It means she shouldn't. She did. And there should not be laws against it. I wouldn't blame her husband for divorcing her because of it, but she still has a right to do it.

Women and men alike abandon their families for really stupid reasons. People do wretched and terrible things to their families. It's not an uncommon story at all, it's just reality. Most of the time this kind of thing doesn't even make news. The fact that this particular story is related to Occupy Wall Street doesn't make it any less common or even all that much different. Should people abandon their families? No. Can they do so? Yes. And these kids aren't babies. Aside from the 7 year old, they're all teenagers. They're not going to shrivel up and die from lack of mommy's perpetual presence.

Mind you, I'm not condoning her behavior. It's horrible and kind of baffling. It's just no different than getting separated or divorced in order to go camping in the grand canyon, or divorcing because you can't agree on which way the toilet paper goes (true story), or separating to go shag your secret lover. If she really wants to stay there "forever" and abandon her family like this, her husband should probably start divorce proceedings. But sometimes people just suck.

Who is the one that was really abandoned? Feeling abandoned and being abandoned with no one in common surrounding you is even worst.
I was abandoned by my husband, after struggling to set up home with him in a horrible capital city of graspinng asiatic cambodia. I think she should have her own life if she was tired being slave to her family, though I think it is no better to be slave to another organisation whether it is hippie or not. Perhaps her partnership with her husband was so frustrating that she felt pressured to flee to another place, temporarily, even though it is more risky, to sort out some problems? Struggling living in a park is most probably uncomfortable and therefore she most probably have a problem to cause her to endure this type of outdoor discomfort.
Perhaps, she was the one that was being abandoned but people are quick to point a finger at her, without knowing her real situation or circumstances? Still, I think, she should stay together with her husband(understanding? caring? supportive?), if her husband was not unfaithful to her in any way.

Marta: Nice cherry-picking, Amy. This is a far more typical Occupy Wall Street story:

http://occupywallst.org/article/parents-sleepover/

Amy: Um, do you see invisible ink, Marta, that no one else can see, where I said this is a "typical" story from Occupy Wall Street? . . . This is [merely] a story about a mother who is behaving abhorrently.

Marta, you can be quite certain that Amy has never posted a story about a mother at a Tea Party protest who had behaved abhorrently.

There are even worst asian mothers who abandoned their child just to be with another man. too many asian mothers abandoned their children with their equally horrible maids for the whole day and whole night for up to two years or even more, and that is also another form of abandonment, though those asiatic form of abandonment is more subtle, and more cruel.
I agree that once one becomes a mother, one have certain responsibilities and most times her kids needs is more important than her own selfish needs.

The reason this is interesting is because it's connected to OWS. Had she gone to Aruba with the pool boy, this wouldn't be all that noteworthy.

However, it is pretty awful. Hopefully she'll go groveling back to them when NYC starts getting really cold at night.

Amy, do a Google search. There are literally THOUSANDS of stories about bad parenting you could put up on your site, but you chose this one about OWS.

And then you get defensive when I attempt to show the other side of the coin.

Wow. Do you often give your reader's intelligence so little credit?

I also suspect (not knowing more than the news story provides, of course) that this woman's behavior is more about her own need to escape than any cause. That just provides a good excuse."

Exactly! There are many worthwhile causes in this world. There is not one worth abandoning my kids for.

Marta: Amy, do a Google search. There are literally THOUSANDS of stories about bad parenting you could put up on your site, but you chose this one about OWS.

But of course. A story about a Libertarian father who molested his children or a Tea Party mother who abandoned her children wouldn't help portray OWS in a negative way.

"Marta, you can be quite certain that Amy has never posted a story about a mother at a Tea Party protest who had behaved abhorrently. "

I dare you to find one. The fact that there has not been a widely publicized case strongly indicates that there is no such thing. If there was, the media would have made it front-page news for months on end, and people like Jim would be throwing it in our faces on every single thread.

The story just illustrates that there is no extreme that a narcissist won't go to in order that they can feel smug and self-righteous about themselves.

Marta, if anyone's insulting our intelligence, it's you. Amy likely simply found this story, possibly when looking up stories on OWS, and thought it was worth sharing, as she does feel strongly that once you have kids, your needs come second.

I didn't see Amy getting defensive. I saw you becoming a literalist-nazi and sermonizing her on the woman's lawful rights. Then when Amy responded quite appropriately to your diatribe, explaining that what the woman "doesn't get to do" was not a statement about her legal rights -- or her physical capabilities for that matter -- but her moral obligations, you shifted gears and decided to fault her for not finding any one of the thousands of other stories about Mom's abandoning their kids for ostensible reasons other than going to occupy Wall Street.

Bluntly, the one who seems to be getting defensive is you. She shared a story she happened upon. Perhaps you're an "occupado" (for lack of a better term to describe the supporters of the OWS movement -- I can't believe I chose the word "movement" when calling someone an "occupado"), who gets all defensive when someone impugns anyone associated with the movement. Your argument amounts to "Other mothers abandon their kids, too!" So, what? This story happens to be about a Wall Street Occupier that did abandon her children.

Jim, if you care so much about those stories, no one's stopping you from finding them and sharing them. I'm fairly certain Amy wouldn't censor your posts for sharing them.

Again, this isn't about OWS...

Amy, you're being disingenuous. For the past three or so weeks you've had posts taking pot shots at OWS. This is just another in the series.

Marta, this is one I saw today...

I'd bet anything that of the fifteen or so people who post (people who originate posts, not those who comment) on the mostly-lefty blog I'm on, at least some of them saw the same item. But none of them found it "newsworthy" enough to post. On the other hand, if it was a woman who had ditched her husband and kids to go to a Tea Party protest, I can assure you they would have posted it (and Amy wouldn't.)

It's interesting to note how little attention I pay to some posters here. Cousin Dave states emphatically that Jim would be telling us all about a Tea Partier that abandoned their children and never letting us hear the end of it. I didn't know that much about Jim.

For the record, the Tea Party's stance on fiscal responsibility is commendable. I do not accept the idea that that is Tea Party's only stance and that everyone's welcome in the Tea Party tent, regardless of whether their black, white, conservative, liberal, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim or Atheist, as long as they just believe in not spending money they don't have.

I accept that Tea Partiers are about fiscal responsibility. But if you're going to tell me that that's the only thing that defines them, I say, BULLSHIT!

Jim, I read enough of Amy's columns to know that she feels very strongly about putting the needs of the kids first, and if the marriage is sort of ho-hum, you need to endure until the nest is empty. It happened to be on the front page of the NY Post, and it's about an issue that Amy feels strongly about, so she ran it.

And if Amy truly intended this to be a pot shot on OWS, I would have expected something like, "This is what the OWS people are all about! Abandoning their kids to go occupy Wall St." And then I and several others would have faulted her for her obviously illogical premise of taking a single example and declaring it representative.

It's not about the occupados. It's about someone walking out on their four children for the cause du jour, which just happens to be OWS. There is nothing that I saw in any of Amy's comments that had anything to do with OWS. She was strictly about the woman's decision to leave her kids.

Dave, it wouldn't have necessarily been a story about a mother at a Tea Party protest who had behaved abhorrently. It could have been any kind of negative story about a Tea Partier. Given where her sympathies lie, I highly doubt she would have posted the story here. But OWS? She has obvious disdain for it so anything's fair game.

And actually, no, I wouldn't be throwing it in your faces on every single thread*. I didn't agree with that tactic when anti-Tea-Party people did it on my other blog and I don't agree with it here. I think cheap shots are cheap shots, no matter who takes them.

* and if you're going to come back and mention the post I made on another thread about the photo of the Tea Partier holding up an "Obama is in favor of sodomy and abortion" sign, I did that to make a point: that's the kind of post the lefty folks were making during the Tea Party protests in their attempt to "show" that Tea Partiers were homophobic and conservative.

Cousin Dave is somehow able to divine that this is not a story about politics but narcissism.

Again, you're being disingenuous (which is something I've noticed you're very good at.)

Yes, the story is about narcissism. But the fact that you chose to post this particular story about narcissism has to do with the fact that the story involved OWS, which you have been bashing for the past 3-4 weeks.

In the same way, you posted a video on October 17 about an anti-Semitic protestor at OWS-LA. Yeah, the video was "about" her anti-Semitism but the reason you chose to post this particular video about anti-Semitism was because she was at an OWS protest.

It's interesting to note how little attention I pay to some posters here. Cousin Dave states emphatically that Jim would be telling us all about a Tea Partier that abandoned their children and never letting us hear the end of it. I didn't know that much about Jim.

Patrick, as I explained above, Dave would be wrong. As I said to him, I don't like cheap shots no matter who's taking them. When people on the mostly-lefty blog I'm on were taking cheap shots at Tea Party members, I was calling bullshit on them for doing it. That's what you (and Dave) don't know about me.

There are days when chucking it (and them) all seems appealling-in the way doing Brad Pitt does. It's a fantasy. Doesn't mean I don't love them. Acting on it-that's morally wrong.

"On the other hand, if it was a woman who had ditched her husband and kids to go to a Tea Party protest, I can assure you they would have posted it (and Amy wouldn't.)"

Can you find a post of Amy's supporting the tea party? I haven't read one. I think a mom would find it hard to abandon her family for the tea party, they hold rallies for a few hours and go home. They have jobs, they can't be camping out for weeks on end. They work on elections, which is how one really gets things changed.

It's interesting to note how little attention I pay to some posters here. Cousin Dave states emphatically that Jim would be telling us all about a Tea Partier that abandoned their children and never letting us hear the end of it. I didn't know that much about Jim.

Patrick, as I explained above, Dave would be wrong. As I said to him, I don't like cheap shots no matter who's taking them. When people on the mostly-lefty blog I'm on were taking cheap shots at Tea Party members, I was calling bullshit on them for doing it. That's what you (and Dave) don't know about me.

Sorry, Amy. Your sales job is amusing. It's not a coincidence that both the anti-Semitic post and this one happened to have OWS as part of story.

Jim, if this is truly Amy's subtle way of bashing OWS, then I have to say, it's not working. I'm not walking away with the impression that OWS are terrible people who walk out on their children, or terrible people who do a variety of things. And I'm here pretty much every day. If Amy's doing this because she's conducting an insidious campaign to poison my mind against OWS, then she's doing a terrible job. She's being too clandestine. Particularly if, as you say, she's been at this for three to four weeks.

I think if you're honest, Jim, you need to consider the possibility that you're being hypersensitive. Or perhaps you've been backed into an untenable position, and would rather not admit that.

"Scummy"? Goodness, Amy, I've never heard you call one of us regulars that before. You're generally pretty restrained when it comes to us regulars. Not that I'm saying that anything's wrong with that. Merely that it's notable and interesting.

I managed to miss the anitisemitic OWS post. If the school teacher incident is the one I'm thinking of, I wrote an extensive piece about it here : http://veniceforchange.blogspot.com/2011/10/are-occupy-wall-street-protests.html

As for the rest of Amy's comments, well, she's certainly welcome to her own opinions, (especially since its her own blog!) just not her own facts. Although I do find it interesting she repeatedly accuses others of projecting positions she doesnt hold by claiming to "have a window into" her brain while doing precisely the same thing to commentors here who don't agree with her.

I'm getting the impression that it's not about Amy's supposed bashing of the Occupados. It's about Marta's and Jim's need to canonize them.

As someone recently (and perceptively) wrote on another thread: Heh... Some here are goddesses. It is their prerogative to write books on rudeness and practice it at their whim.

*

I think if you're honest, Jim, you need to consider the possibility that you're being hypersensitive. Or perhaps you've been backed into an untenable position, and would rather not admit that.

Patrick, when we have an opinion about something, I think most of us tend to omit qualifying statements which specifically point out that it is our opinion (e.g. we say "that movie sucked" instead of "in my opinion, that movie sucked", or "I think that movie sucked") so it comes across as stating an opinion as fact. I did that here. I said that Amy is being disingenuous. I should have said "I believe that Amy is being disingenuous."

I still believe that. Amy has had numerous posts here bashing the OWS movement. I don't believe she had two posts about people -- one spouting some anti-Semitic stuff and the other a woman who abandoned her family -- and that it was just a coincidence that both happened to involve the OWS movement.

Is it possible that this was simply a coincidence? Of course. It's also possible that the so-called "truthers" are right and 9/11 was the result of some grand neocon conspiracy and that 19 Islamist terrorists really weren't responsible for the horrible attacks of that day, and it's also possible that O.J. Simpson didn't brutally murder two people.

That's really all I can say. Amy's assertions mean nothing to me because if she was being disingenuous, I'm certain she'd never cop to it.

I personally don't care if this woman ran out on her family to go to an OWS protest or ran off to stand in front of an bulldozer on the west bank.

People who desert their real world, voluntarily entered into responsibilities in order to join some meaningless symbolic protest and hold a sign up, are despicable.
Amy is right and this is a typical lefty behavior (valuing "humanity" in the abstract over your own children.)

This woman cares more about sharing a tent with some deadbeat idiot with 100k worth of student loans they can't pay back, than she does about her own children.

She says they are being cared for, but wouldn't it be easier for her to do this herself and send money or pay some skid row bum to protest in her place?

My guess, she has wanted to kick over the traces for years, and OWS was just a convenient excuse.

Regarding "scummy," it's the underhandedness Jim consistently displays in his "arguments" that lead to the use of that word. There's plenty of disagreement here -- you and I have some issues where we don't agree, Patrick. But, you don't try underhanded tactics - you merely state your opinion and support it.

Amy, there's no "underhandedness" involved here (or anywhere else.) All I'm doing is stating my opinion of what you're doing with those two posts. As I mentioned to Patrick, I did err is stating my opinion as fact but, in that same post, I just clarified that it was, and is, my opinion.

Nope, I've posted here before, although its been a while.

As for the rest of it, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Even if you have to resort to making unfounded, innacurrate accusations to express it.

Nope, I've posted here before, although its been a while.

As for the rest of it, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Even if you have to resort to making unfounded, innacurrate accusations to express it.

Marta,

I'm sure I've seen you're name, very occasionally, around here. Usually it is when you want to support your side and denigrate the other side.

But at the same time there is no leader of the OWS that will disavow Patricia McAllister's remarks (www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIZZDUTbhNk)

And everyone please note that Jim is not me. He has posted some decent comments in the past -- but I cannot support him in any of this.

Marta, if anyone's insulting our intelligence, it's you. . . . I didn't see Amy getting defensive. I saw you becoming a literalist-nazi and sermonizing her on the woman's lawful rights. Then when Amy responded quite appropriately to your diatribe, explaining that what the woman "doesn't get to do" was not a statement about her legal rights -- or her physical capabilities for that matter -- but her moral obligations, you shifted gears and decided to fault her for not finding any one of the thousands of other stories about Mom's abandoning their kids for ostensible reasons other than going to occupy Wall Street.

Patrick, you're combining posts from two different women there (be careful with those bong hits, man! :) There was no gear-shifting involved.

Sarah was your "literalist-nazi", the one who mentioned the woman's legal right to do what she did. Marta was the one who mentioned there were "thousands of other stories about Mom's abandoning their kids for ostensible reasons other than going to occupy Wall Street."

Jim,

McCallister's antisemetic remarks have been thoroughly disavowed by the Occupy Los Angeles organizers. Here's the link: http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/923

"This episode involving Ms. Mc Allister illustrates a problem inherent to this sort of gathering. Anyone can say anything they want to anyone they want to. It is up to the news organizations that solicit these remarks to keep in mind that there are people who say these things with the intention of misrepresenting the Occupation Movement in general and Occupy Los Angeles in specific (which has an on-site Jewish Temple). I suspect they are aware of that already.

It is unfortunate when these people find someone with a camera or a microphone that is willing to help them misrepresent the larger group. The concern by the ADL is legitimate, but Ms. Mc Allister in no way reflects the thinking of anyone I’ve spoken to since the beginning of this experiment in direct democracy. If someone with similar views makes themselves known, they will be asked to find another venue.

If there are people who have used the Occupation Movement as a vehicle to make inappropriate remarks elsewhere, especially over the Internet, we can only denounce them and their message. Consider this a formal denouncement."

So here's the deal Jim, the era of right-wing misinformation going unanswered on the internet is OVER. People are too smart, and the resources are right at our fingertips to counter ever bit of mud you'd care sling.

Have a great weekend!

Thanks for the link, Marta.

It is up to the news organizations that solicit these remarks to keep in mind that there are people who say these things with the intention of misrepresenting the Occupation Movement in general and Occupy Los Angeles in specific (which has an on-site Jewish Temple). I suspect they are aware of that already.

I don't necessarily agree with this spin, that the woman was intending to misrepresent the Occupy movement. The Occupy movement, just like the Tea Party, likely has people with all different kinds of views, including fringe views. But of course, if you have a blog, and you have disdain for a movement, then finding a story (or video) about a person like this is gold.

I just did a Google search for the story about the Florida banker's wife. Fox News liked it. Rush liked it. Free Republic liked it. But, interestingly enough, I couldn't find any mention of it on sites like Daily Kos or Huffington Post.

Amy is right and this is a typical lefty behavior (valuing "humanity" in the abstract over your own children.)

Huh, Isabel? One woman does this and it's "typical" lefty behavior?

A lefty version of you would probably assert that a "typical" conservative only cares about their own children and would never help any other children in need.

And then you get defensive when I attempt to show the other side of the coin.

Wow. Do you often give your reader's intelligence so little credit?

Posted by: Marta

LOL, I guess Amy's comment about invisible ink was doubly apropo

Waht other side of the coin? A familly who took their kid to arguable one of the mose dangerous cities in north america to act as a prop in a pointless messageless PR stunt by morons who were to stupid to acctually PLAN for a future?

Marta, you can be quite certain that Amy has never posted a story about a mother at a Tea Party protest who had behaved abhorrently.
Posted by: Jim at October 22, 2011 3:13 PM

But of course. A story about a Libertarian father who molested his children or a Tea Party mother who abandoned her children wouldn't help portray OWS in a negative way.
Posted by: Jim

Ok Jim I'll bite, you got any links? You share them with Amy under the message title of 'examples of bad parenting via bullshit political causes excuse'?

Here you go Jim

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/10/07/occupy_wall_str.html

and under the video we have this quote about some tea party members from Amy

"There are some ugly and racist posters in there,"

So what was it you were saying about Amy never ever posting anything bad about the Tea party?
jackass

Jim,

You wrote: I just did a Google search for the story about the Florida banker's wife. Fox News liked it. Rush liked it. Free Republic liked it. But, interestingly enough, I couldn't find any mention of it on sites like Daily Kos or Huffington Post.

Interestingly enough, the latter two sites tend to be a bit more concerned with reality. :)

And while I've never been a fan of Mr. Limbaugh, whatever tiny kernel of respect I may had for him as an "entertainer" evaporated this week when he defended the "Lord's Resistance Army"
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/15/rush_limbaugh_on_lords_resistance_army_obama_invades_uganda_targets_christians

Well, lujlp, I did say: you can be quite certain that Amy has never posted a story about a mother at a Tea Party protest who had behaved abhorrently and your link doesn't counter that, but let's not quibble about technicalities.

OK, so she did point out something negative about some Tea Party members. Good for her (and I mean that sincerely.) When the Tea Party protests were going on, did she have numerous posts taking pot shots at them, as she has done with the OWS movement? Perhaps your research can uncover those as well.

And it still doesn't change my opinion that it was not a coincidence that her posts about the anti-Semitic woman and the banker's wife involved the OWS movement.

jackass Oh lujlp, my dear lad. That was truly a tragic disappointment. Surely you can do better than that. "Jackass" is high school level insult material. C'mon, I know you can ramp it up a few notches!

Yes Jim and Marta, Amy has a libertarian bent and her bias leans towards the Tea Party rather than OWS. Everyone has a bias. That's Amy's. Mine runs towards OWS, but I don't have a blog. Other people do, however... you could read Alternet if you want bias in the other direction.

I find its best to read from a variety of sources and then form an opinion. This can be one of them for you.

Amy wrote, "You and Jim both play dirty.

You both disgust me.

And again, plenty of people disagree with me here, but they don't fight dirty.

Look at how you just referenced which sites/people linked to this story. None of that has anything to do with why I linked to it, but you must grasp at straws because you have only ugliness and low blows on your side here, in attacking me for something I didn't do, which is post this as a story representative of a movement, which I've said over and over it's not.

You and Jim are both representative of something: An ugliness and dirtiness that is not usually seen here, and I hope there's some tiny bit of you that feels ashamed."

......and I rest my case.

Interestingly enough, the latter two sites tend to be a bit more concerned with reality. :)

Well, of course, that's what conservatives would say about the other three sites. What we can say is that the latter two sites aren't concerned with taking pot shots at OWS.

Yeah, I heard that about Limbaugh. Not surprising at all. If Obama found a cure for cancer and convinced Supreme Leader Khamenei to turn Iran into a secular democracy, Limbaugh would find some reason to criticize him.

I see that article does say that "after a break, [Limbaugh] (sort of) realizes his mistake:"

Is that right? The Lord's Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? Child kidnapping, torture, murder, that kind of stuff? Well, we just found out about this today. We're gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys -- and they claim to be Christians.

Nicole, you wrote:

Yes Jim and Marta, Amy has a libertarian bent and her bias leans towards the Tea Party rather than OWS. Everyone has a bias. That's Amy's. Mine runs towards OWS, but I don't have a blog. Other people do, however... you could read Alternet if you want bias in the other direction.

I find its best to read from a variety of sources and then form an opinion......

Well put. I think it's important to expose oneself to a variety of opinions, which is why I enjoy reading this site, and why I've enjoyed participating in the discussions. Something, BTW, i don't often have the time to do, but I'm laid up at the moment recovering from shoulder surgery.

That you feel the need to resort ad hominem attacks.....

Actually, I'm really glad you brought up the Million Moron March post, because in it, I dissect how the right wing media vastly overestimated a Tea Party rally attendance.

Here's the link: http://veniceforchange.blogspot.com/2009/09/you-lie-anatomy-of-2-million-moron.html

in attacking me for something I didn't do, which is post this as a story representative of a movement, which I've said over and over it's not.

Amy, saying I believe you posted this story (and the anti-Semitic video) as being "representative" of OWS is a straw man. Never said that. I do believe you posted both as a little dig at OWS, but that's not the same thing as me saying that you're claiming those people are "representative."

As I've said before, you've had numerous posts here taking shots at the OWS movement. In light of that backdrop, while it's certainly possible that your posts about the anti-Semitic woman and this Florida woman just coincidentally had OWS as part of the story, it also, in my opinion, stretches the bounds of credulity.

I find it laughably hypocritical for you to have posts taking shots at OWS, with no posts saying anything positive, and then get all up on your high horse about me playing dirty.

Realy Jimmy? It was just about tea party mothers? That was your complaint?

Cause in case you forgot you also wrote this

"Dave, it wouldn't have necessarily been a story about a mother at a Tea Party protest who had behaved abhorrently. It could have been any kind of negative story about a Tea Partier. Given where her sympathies lie, I highly doubt she would have posted the story here. "
Posted by: Jim at October 22, 2011 5:10 PM

So by all means shithead, let us DO 'quibble about technicalities'

Cause "technically" you said any story

Your problem Jim is that you are an asshole, every time anyone points out your mistakes, your misconceptions, or your lies, you just ignore it and doubledown. Every time someone answers your questions or meets your argumentive criteria you move the goalposts and pretend you never got the answer you asked for

grow the fuck up already, douchebag

Marta, when Tea Party members were accused of racism, did you post to say they all weren't racist? I mean, since you're such a beacon of fairness.

Here is an example of her fairness.

From the Daily Dish:

A common meme on the left is that racism is driving the hatred of Obama. I think the root is deeper and scarier: it is shadow projection.

Our ego wants to believe we are wonderful, and so cannot tolerate evidence to the contrary. Consider America. As good as we are, we have a dark side and our actions often have dark consequences. We are large and cast a large shadow. If we were a more mature people we would simply own our dark side, integrate it into part of our self knowledge, and act accordingly. However American mythology says that we are the good country, and to maintain that the pure version of that belief, we are willfully ignorant of our faults. In the minds of many “patriotic” Americans, we have no dark side. Unwilling to own our dark side, we project our shadow onto others.

She doesn't even have original thoughts.

She didn't even take the time to post her own thoughts. The blogger at the Atlantic did take the time (www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/09/not-racism-projection/196573/).

Nicole, yes, Amy's bias is quite evident. So is the bias on this other blog (a mostly-lefty one) I'm on. When the Tea Party protests were going on, they were taking shots at the Tea Partiers and they (well, most of them) love OWS over there. I see some value in both movements.

I actually didn't come on here for the blog or the politics. Years ago (I can't remember how many...perhaps seven or eight) I somehow stumbled on Amy's site and read her bit where, as I recall, she was putting provocative notes on SUVs. I thought it was hilarious. I really enjoyed her writing so I bookmarked the site but then forgot about it. A few months ago, I was going through bookmarks in an old folder and saw "Amy Alkon" and decided to check back in, and then began making some comments on her advice columns. Then later I moved on to some of the blog posts.

The deets are sketchy: Dad is a "financial adviser who now works at a local Florida bank". So we're probably not talking a high-voltage performer here, OK?

I mean, yeah, the optics are suboptimal...

But on a blog where so many commenters are cheered to see children raised by deliberately single mothers, or by two dads and NO mothers, it's hard understand why you're so opinionated about a woman who cuts loose for a couple weeks.

________

I watched the video. I want CREDIT for that! I hate watching these videos.

1. She doesn't seem real. Too pot-heady. Too indulgent and too proficient with lyrical, swooping pitches of "I" when describing her own fulfillment. Moms of four aren't usually like that.

2. She doesn't have the ass of a woman with four kids... At least not four of her own, which may explain much.

lujlp, amigo, did you note that I wrote "It could have been any kind of negative story about a Tea Partier. Given where her sympathies lie, I highly doubt she would have posted the story here."

You do realize that there's a difference between "highly doubt" and "I know for a fact" don't you?

Your problem Jim is that you are an asshole, . . . grow the fuck up already, douchebag

Well, a slight improvement but still very disappointing. Still pretty much high school level insults. I was hoping for something much more creative. C'mon try again....PUH-LEEZE!!!

And yet when I pointed out that she had posted such a story, what was your response?

Oh right, that you'd asked that it be limited to stories involving mothers, even though that wasnt what you had asked for.

Doubling down on lies, ignoring the answeres you'd asked for, moving the goalposts

Own the fact that you are an unethical peice of shit, stop denying what you and everyone else already knows to be true

I am fiscally conservative and libertarian and I make no secret about that. I also live and write from a foundation of rationality, and I would not suggest that one anti-Semitic woman represents everyone in this movement, as that would be highly irrational.

Again, straw man. Never said you suggested this woman "represents everyone" in the OWS movement. But you don't have to suggest that in order to get in a little dig: look at this hateful person who was at an Occupy protest!

NY Times: Cries of Anti-Semitism, but Not at Zuccotti Park

But much as the Tea Party movement initially grappled with accusations of racism, Occupy Wall Street has been consistently confronted with accusations of anti-Semitism. Several conservative Web sites and television programs have shown video of the sign-holder, as well as of a woman at an allied demonstration in Los Angeles who identified herself as a public school teacher and decried “Zionist Jews who are running the big banks and the Federal Reserve.”

And yet when I pointed out that she had posted such a story, what was your response? Oh right, that you'd asked that it be limited to stories involving mothers, even though that wasnt what you had asked for.

lujlp, congratulations on your excellent ability to read selectively! You spaced out on the part where I wrote: "OK, so she did point out something negative about some Tea Party members. Good for her (and I mean that sincerely.)"

Own the fact that you are an unethical peice of shit,

Good Lord, that is so profoundly uncreative. I had such hopes for you lujlp. I really thought you were going to come up with great insult on your third attempt.

And as for Amy's bias

The underlying mesage of the Tea Party, before everyone under the sun on the right caught a ride, was dont buy shit you cant pay for

The underlying message of the OW people is, we made bad choices with our government subsidies and want our debt forgiven and we want to blame people and businesses who made smart choices with their government subsidies. The fact that the government is directly at the root of both of their major complaints seems to escape every one of them

Which of those two ideals whould you rather be a part of?

FYI its not a trick question

Jim, I think we have a miscocepton here

Insult (also called a slur, scoff, slight or putdown) an expression, statement ( or sometimes behavior) which is considered degrading and offensive.

An insult is designed soley to cause offense and harm to anothers ego.

No sir, what I am doing is not insulting you; it is telling you what I think of you and your charachter.

I wonder how long this thread is going to go on. This is stupid. Amy presented a story who abandoned her children to join the cause celebre. That it happened to be the OWS was incidental, not instrumental. This woman probably would have justified her departure by any other cause that happened to catch the public's eye.

In agreement. Then Amy, along with other right wing sites, republished the story as a dig at OWS.

Amy, if I may, just offer this criticism (and perhaps, since you're a syndicated columnist, your weakness is understandable): You worry too much about what other people think.

I formed this concern when I happened to notice you were on Amazon.com, defending your book from the nonentities over at what's-its-place who got bent out of shape over your opinions regarding Tarika Wilson. While I agree that it was sabotage, confronting them yourself was probably not a good idea. There were some intelligent thoughtful reviews written there, and I think Amazon regulars can distinguish those who actually read the book vs. those who were there to simply harm your ratings. We see it often enough. We know how the game is played.

Yes, it's understandable, because low-ratings could translate into bad sales, but on the other hand, everyone writes a book is going to have that done. I had recently watched a video of a Tea Party seminar, where the instructor plainly admitted and encouraged the attendants to visit Amazon.com and rate all books by liberal authors with one star. Needless to say, he admitted plainly to having read none of them.

When I publish my own book, I have no doubts that I will be beset by saboteurs. But I would prefer to rely on my friends and supporters to defend my writing. It's bad form for me to do it myself. I don't need to reply to bad reviews and point out that they're people who haven't even read the book and that they belong to a particular website group that recently smeared me.

Now, I'm kind of wondering if this is what's operating here. Jim and Marta, in my humble opinion, have wigged out. They haven't changed a single person's mind, and have only succeeded in making themselves look worse. I wouldn't suggest, of course, that you shouldn't respond to them. But neither should you obsessively worry about them and concern yourself with providing a counter to everything they say.

Trust me, they ain't that important.

@Marta: "In agreement. Then Amy, along with other right wing sites, republished the story as a dig at OWS."
___________________

Nonsense. Her post is about the mother's actions, not about OWS. Just like a post about someone abandoning their family to go to college would be a swipe at college.

Marta, Amy asked you a very good question, to which you haven't responded: When Tea Party members were accused of racism, did you post to say they all weren't racist?

I think, if I'm understanding him correctly, that Jim is pointing out something interesting in that in general everyone tends to zero in on the obviously whacky people who hold views opposed to our own, and overlook the whacky people whose views coincide with our own. But the focus of this blog post is clearly a parent going AWOL, a subject Amy has written about many times.

Republicans whose beliefs I don't share usually just shrug (and probably privately consider me to have somewhat loose morals or something).

Libertarian girls never get a break, do we. :)

So, selfish midlife crisis lady goes and joins the nearest protest movement, and somehow this has anything to do with the du jour protest movement? This is about bad parenting. Not OWS.

However, THIS is about OWS:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-wealth-inequality-america-understanding-source

Why DO we have a 99% and a 1%? Just getting all mad about it doesn't do much good. Find out why things are that way!

Well one thing that I've taken from this long and pointless thread is that OWS people are very thin skinned and probably hiding something.

I wouldn't have thought to equate narcissistic housewives with the OWS, but based on Jim and Marta's reaction - I probably should. They wouldn't be nearly so panicked about this post if there weren't some truth to it.

If you look at what Amy actually typed, her heading and her own text, she is talking only about the mother's actions. Where the mother went is completely incidental. That some people who see everything through political lenses jumped on that to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of OWL or the TP speaks more of their mindset than hers.

This is about the responsibilities that were left behind, not the destination of the rogue.

Man, this has gotten ugly. I'd just like to say that I don't find this mom "selfish" for taking off to protest. Her comment that she is "never going home" is what's selfish, but if she was a peace activist in the Vietnam era, or wanted to camp out for a few weeks to protest racism or some other cause, it would likely be a great learning experience for her kids and one that would make them very proud of their mom.

Nothing says mothers have to always stay at home in the kitchen baking cookies. I don't support the OWS movement, but I see nothing wrong with her leaving her family TEMPORARILY to protest based on her beliefs.

Watch the movie "Secretariat". There's a mom who essentially abandoned her kids temporarily for a horse, but it was also a teachable moment. You stand up for what you believe in.

"Watch the movie "Secretariat". There's a mom who essentially abandoned her kids temporarily for a horse, but it was also a teachable moment. You stand up for what you believe in."

Yes, and no. The movie certainly does portray it that way, but Penny Tweedy was the heir to a farm, that was being run by her father who was rapidly losing his abilities to do so because of Alzheimers.

The horse was central to her running (and saving)the family business. These were also wealthy people and I am sure the kids who wanted to, went back and forth between Virginia and Denver on a regular basis.
One of my big gripes with movies is that in order to simply a situation enough to get it on the screen, the complex motives people have, tend to get written out of the script.
OTOH, I don't think there is anything complex about the OWS mom. She wanted to run away from home, and she found an excuse.

Yeah, the OWS mom sounds like a whackadoodle, so I don't mean to make her out to be a hero. But I went to college with a girl whose mom protested nuclear power plants all over the country. She'd travel, camp out, and protest wherever one was being built. Sometimes, she took her daughter along, but often not.

The girl was smart, talented and independent, and obviously very proud of her mom for being an activist. So, it isn't necessarily a bad thing to see your parent pursue a goal, whether it's winning the triple crown, an Olympic medal, or making a political difference. In fact, particularly for girls, it can be a powerful inspiration.

I don't quite understand how we've fallen back in this country to the message that being a "good" mom means staying at home and being practically attached to your kids all the time. I see it among my maternal peers and the crippling effect it often has on their kids.

"I don't quite understand how we've fallen back in this country to the message that being a "good" mom means staying at home and being practically attached to your kids all the time."

Obviously, this isn't a good parenting choice, but it's not what this thread is about. Bringing it up right below the anecdote about how wonderfully the activist mother's daughter turned out creates a false set of options: Crippling your child by hovering, or creating a smart, talented, independent adult by being an "activist".

Actually, this thread is about parenthood, not politics. The heading is "What you don't get to do when you're somebody's mother", and I'm assuming Amy means not camping in a tent with a strange waiter - or vowing to leave home indefinately - not the protesting itself.

"But I went to college with a girl whose mom protested nuclear power plants all over the country. She'd travel, camp out, and protest wherever one was being built. Sometimes, she took her daughter along, but often not."

I don't find protesting to be a particularly admirable quality especially when protesters are usually the last to offer any viable alternatives.
Nuclear power plants, in the grand scheme of things are a much safer and better choice than coal burning, or oil burning power plants, and much better for the environment.
I might admire this mother more if she actually lived in accordance with her principles, i.e. consumed only power generated by environmentally friendly alternatives such as wind or solar, and rode a bicycle to all those protests. Other than that, in my book, she is basically just another clueless hypocrite, who can't do math or analyze "real" risk.

I hold her and her fellow protesters largely responsible for the fact that my electric bills have more than tripled over the last 15 years.

"Nuclear power plants, in the grand scheme of things are a much safer and better choice than coal burning, or oil burning power plants, and much better for the environment."

I actually agree with you, Isabel. Her protests weren't something I personally believed in. My point is just that it can be healthy for kids, particularly young girls, to see their moms as more than just moms. That was once a fundamental principle of feminism - and SAHMs felt slighted, as if what they were doing wasn't as meaningful -so now, it seems to have swung too far the other way.

Neither position really has anything to do with being a good parent. There are bad SAHMs and activist moms, as well as great ones.

"Yes, the story is about narcissism. But the fact that you chose to post this particular story about narcissism has to do with the fact that the story involved OWS, which you have been bashing for the past 3-4 weeks. "

Well, OWS is a pretty narcissistic event. Per some polling data I've seen, nearly everyone who is there is there because they want the government to give them something. And their concepts about basic government and economic matters are so out of whack (94% believe that the military accounts for the bulk of the federal budget) and so contrary to easily available data that the only possible conclusion is that they are not ignorant but deliberately obtuse -- they're avoiding the truth because they don't like it.

OWS has a lot of qualities that are attractive to narcissists -- fawning press coverage, constant attention-getting antics, a snobbishly superior attitude, and a general libertine vibe. Plus lots of free stuff being given to them. Leftism (as opposed to liberalism) is essentially the politics of narcissism, so it makes perfect sense that Hessler would see OWS as her life's calling.

Patrick: A lot of those "racist" Tea Partiers turn out to be left-wing infiltrators when they are checked out. You're aware of Mobying, aren't you? Leftists have a specific strategy of infiltrating Tea Party events with signs and statements meant to embarrass them. Sometimes they arrange with local media to coordinate the coverage so that reporters are aware of who the infiltrators are and can make them representative of the whole movement. Since a lot of Tea Party rallies are public events, it's hard to keep them out. (Tea Party rallies, unlike OWS occupations, have to get permits and obey regulations.) Having said that: There is a lot of variability from one Tea Party group to the next. I have had little to do with the local Tea Party because they have gone way off-message concerning social issues.

To answer the race question about the Tea Party ( can't remember now who asked), I don't believe everyone who's attended a rally or expressed sympathy with the Tea Party are racists.

Over the last couple of years, the demographics and attitudes of Tea Party participants have been studied fairly extensively. It makes for some pretty interesting reading, here are some links:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/25/are-tea-partiers-racist.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?pagewanted=all

The first line of the NYT piece is bullshit. Do we need to keep going?

All right, Amy. If that's your motivation, I accept that. I personally wouldn't give those the time of day at this point. They aren't going change anyone's mind. And they're not going to change (what they at least pretend) is their opinion, either.

Cousin Dave,

Do you mean signs like these?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-tea-party-signs.htm

"Racially resentful" doesn't equate to "racist". To say minorities should try harder, rather than lean on government programs and aid, isn't racist.

My parents were active in the civil rights movement in the south. They're not racists, and they would say the same thing - a lot of the government assistance they fought for has had the opposite impact of what was intended. It's made things far worse for minorities in many cases. To speak this truth isn't racist, just realistic.

They're not teapartiers either, but as their child, I lean more towards those views, and I'm not racist.

The first line of the NYT piece is bullshit. Do we need to keep going?

Yes. Yes, you do.

Also, what Cousin said.

Jeezus, Marta, you and Promiscuous Jim seemed to jump out of nowhere with sharpened fangs and bloodshot eyes over this one, and it's hard to see why. This post isn't that big a deal; the woman under discussion isn't that big a deal; and OWS is nothing but silliness. So what's with your synchronized menses? Why on Earth are you two here if your resentments to what's being said are so principled and profound?... And why, then, are your arguments so weak?

> Yes. Yes, you do.

No, Buttercup... No, I don't. They squander my shallow faith in their integrity in the first line.

What's your life like?

National Lampoon once put the question this way, in the conclusion of an imaginary IRS form: What Earthly use are you? Is there any reason you shouldn't be snuffed out like a Marlboro butt?

How is it you imagine we should regard you as a person of decency and clarity, such that your explosively goofy bitchitude could be excused?

And if you must moisten the rest of us with your salty, salty tears about the Tea Party, go suck on this first.

Screwed the link. Feelin' bad about it

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/23/q-how-can-spending-30-percent

"Buttercup" [chortle].

While Amy hasn't made any generalizations about the Wall Street "occupiers" Samantha Bee of The Daily Show shows us who they are...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-6-2011/wall-street-occupied

Sorry to be a buzzkill kids, but Hessler actually has the full support of her family, including her kids:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/protesting_zucc.php

"California-style beliefs, we assume, are beliefs about cucumber, crabmeat, and avocado." lol

I had a feeling they were slanting the coverage about her. At least she's trying to keep the place clean, unlike the ones who were interviewed in Barefoot Dave's link.

> [chortle].

Thanks, Lizzie... I live for that sound.

Seriously, how are we supposed to react when someone is so unaccountably condescending?

"You meanies need to read the NEW — YORK — TIMES!!! That'll learn ya!

LS wrote: "California-style beliefs, we assume, are beliefs about cucumber, crabmeat, and avocado." lol

That had me ROTFLMAO.

Sorry to be a buzzkill kids, but Hessler actually has the full support of her family, including her kids:

I love it. Thanks for the link, Marta.

Jeezus, Marta, you and Promiscuous Jim...

Thanks for the compliment, Crid. I indeed have had a fairly rich and varied sex life and, by being responsible (which, as we know, gets the Crid Housekeeping Seal of Approval), along with a dash of luck, have remained STD free.

If only there'd been a few minutes with a dictionary, as well.

> Hessler actually has the full support of her
> family, including her kids

Did any one here suggest that she didn't, or that we cared how young children felt about it? Do you expect children to tell you how parents should behave? In the original piece, Dad was "perplexed". Maybe he's the kind of guy who likes seeing his name on the national news.

________________

______

Jonah:

The average working-class person today is richer, in real terms, than the average prince or potentate of 300 years ago. His food is better, his life longer, his health better, his menu of entertainments vastly more diverse, his toilette infinitely more civilized. And yet we constantly hear how cruel capitalism is while this collectivism or that is more loving because, unlike capitalism, collectivism is about the group, not the individual.

300 years ago, children were often employed in factories, helping their families eke out a living, instead of going to school. 300 years ago there were debtor prisons.....and slavery. All of these were conditions created to serve capitalism.

Lucky for us, through messy, but ultimately democratic processes, naked capitalism was temprered by unions- which brought us the 40-hour work week and ended most child labor - the New Deal - which brought us Social Security and Medicare (which in turn improved people's health), and the Civil Rights movement - which helped empower the African American vote, and improved opportunity for all minorities, women, and the working poor.

You sound like a brochure in a VD clinic.

And what, specifically, did you ever do for anybody?.. With your own resources, I mean? How did you find yourself visiting this particular blog, and for what are you to be admired?

Tweet

A Pace [University] Poll Survey Research Study

June 16, 2004

The New York Post’s credibility rating is 39% to 44%. Among media outlets recognized by at least 60% of all New Yorkers, only The Post earns a higher negative than positive rating on the credibility scale.

Relevance?

Link?

"Lucky for us, through messy, but ultimately democratic processes, naked capitalism was temprered by unions- which brought us the 40-hour work week and ended most child labor - the New Deal - which brought us Social Security and Medicare (which in turn improved people's health), and the Civil Rights movement - which helped empower the African American vote, and improved opportunity for all minorities, women, and the working poor."

Unfortunately for us, Marta, this didn't make us competitive in the global market, and ultimately, this is what is behind most of our problems. Government has stifled creativity and productivity. Capitalism isn't the problem, government is.

I'm a small business owner - a corporation owner (and my corporations don't pay taxes because, like most corporations, they pay me, and I pay taxes on the income, thus explaining the study about most corporations not paying taxes). I know just from the battles I've had with government that it drastically decreases my productivity and ability to hire more employees. I can't imagine how awful it would be if I had a factory.

Fortunately, I'm in the tourist business, which has a somewhat limited competition. I'm not manufacturing widgets that I must pay 5 times as much to make in America as my competitor in another country does. Yet, a neighbor of mine has spent 12 years trying to build a hotel, going through the unbelievably restrictive permiting process to build a hotel on commercially zoned property that he should have every right to build a commercial building on. This hotel alone would've employed hundreds of people, but the government won't let it happen.

The top 1% of income earners pay 37% of the taxes in this country. The top 10% pay 68%. 47% of Americans (including most of the OWS protestors) pay NO income taxes. This is what is causing the problems in our country. Government spending is way out of control, yet government won't allow businesses to create jobs.

Here's a picture illustration of our current national debt:

http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

The spam filter wouldn't accept the link.

If you google "A Pace Poll Survey Research Study" +"New York Post" +Credible it will be the first link.

Relevance: obvious.

Sorry to be a buzzkill kids, but Hessler actually has the full support of her family, including her kids: - Marta

Actually deary according to that article what she has(and we have) is the word of one person that she has the support of her kids

They didnt acctually question a family member

And the hits just keep on comming

Seems the wall street protesters, while demanding handouts and freebies from the government are getting kinda miffed at the homeless having the temerity to want things like free food and lodging from them

Anyone else find the irony of fairly fortunate people asking for hand outs getting pissed at even less forutnate homeless people asking the same delicious?

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/10/23/20111023occupy-homeless1023.html

For another perspective...

Read the first link when you google "the 47% myth."
(once again, the spam filter wouldn't accept the URL.)

So, who are these 150 million or so people who pay no income tax? Well, at least 60 million of them are children under 15. Goddamm deadbeat children! They should be paying their fair share!

Their parents should pay income tax, always.

Things you think are "obvious" turn out not to exist. I think your system of belief is cowardly but self-aggrandizing... See how that works?

Or is their some expression of excellence in your life we couldn't guess at? Have you made it a point to do good things without tapping the resources of others? Tithing, or something like that? Decency has a heritage... It was, I'm quite certain, not born in your NYT-reading soul.

(Why do lefties automatically assume we'd all agree that they're nice people?)

The Occupy Los Angeles encampment at LA city hall is only blocks from the largest Skid Row in the nation (including NY). when I visited last week, I noticed a few had obviously made their way over.

I'm curious to see how this plays out. I don't know how it works at Occupy locations across the country, but at least in LA, if you're planning to pitch a tent at City Hall, you're expected to check in at the welcome tent, and you're assigned to a detail to help maintain the camp (refuse disposal, food prep, security, facilitating etc....). If you're able-bodied and refuse to pitch in, peer pressure usually does the trick. There aren't any free rides. My observations lead me to believe this coda is rigorously enforced.

The system of course isn't perfect, and since chronic homelessness is a particularly difficult issue in Los Angeles, I imagine Occpy LA will find the struggle to deal with it as complicated for them as for the rest of us.

But

Mr. Software Reviews (directly above, at this moment) is spam. I blame Promiscuous Jim and his "trapped" links.

It's not a myth, Jim. Both sides (the left and right) acknowledge either 47% or 49% don't pay income taxes. Pretty close numbers.

The main point is that, despite cries to the contrary, the wealthy are actually carrying the bulk of the tax burden in this country. And even if the top 10% were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't solve our debt problems! Look at the illustrated debt link I posted.

We're fucked unless we stop spending. Even then, we probably won't survive. The Fed is printing money right now, which is stupid, and pretty soon, they'll give that up and try to wipe out the debt by changing currencies. The dollar is history. It'll be the "Amero" or something like that. Historically, this has never worked well - and those who hold cash will get screwed - but it's probably coming. Buy gold.

Sauté lefties.

> The Occupy Los Angeles encampment at LA city
> hall is...

Yeah, those guys are really intense.

But what I'm asking is, what have you ever done that should cause us to trust your judgment? Have you made even the most quotidian, popular sacrifices on behalf of those less fortunate than yourself?

Or are you only interested in taking control of other people's resources?

Nothing you've said so far betokens any kind of actually kindess. Why, by your example, should we listen?

Actual kindness. Sorry, Sunday night here.

LS, these were his calculations:

But first, let's get back to how many people aren't paying. In 2008, according to the preliminary numbers, 142 million Federal income tax returns were filed, 51 million of which had no income tax liability on them. That's about 36%. Lotsa deadbeats, huh?

But of the 91 million returns filed that did have tax liability, 63 million or so were married filing jointly. So those 91 million tax returns actually represent 174 million people, and doesn't include the children of those people, for the most part. That's about 53% of the population, which is where the infamous 47% number came from.

So, who are these 150 million or so people who pay no income tax? Well, at least 60 million of them are children under 15. Goddamm deadbeat children! They should be paying their fair share! Close to another 40 million are over 65. While many people over 65 have enough income to have income tax liability, they are a minority. At least 25 million of these people are living on Social Security and not much else. Hence, no tax liability.

So, that leaves about 65 million working age adults who are paying no income tax. About 20% of the overall population.

I'm not sure how he got the 174 million figure. My calculation comes up with 154 million. It may be that he's actually including the children of people who pay in that 174 million figure, even though he says it "doesn't include the children of those people." Anyway, I'm going to go with the 154 million. Ultimately, my calculations do agree with his final 20% figure.

126 million = 63 million married filing jointly returns x 2 people
28 million = 28 million other returns
--- --
154 million people 91 million returns

Using an approximate U.S. population in 2008 of 300 million, the 154 million who pay taxes would be 51% and the remainder, 146 million would be 49% (instead of 47%) but it seems reasonable that's how the 47% figure was arrived at.

146 million people don't pay
-60 million children under 15
-25 million elderly on SS
---
61 million working age adults (61 / 300 = 20% of the U.S. population)

Crid,

Listen if you want, don't if you want. It's up to you. I try to back up my opinions with verifiable sources so that the appropriately skeptical can make up their own minds.

LS, you need to look at his calculations. I tried to post them here, along with some calculations I did, but, once again, it got blocked by the spam filter.

Anyway, he calculates that approximately 20% of working-age adults don't pay any income tax.

> I try to back up my opinions with
> verifiable sources

As opposed to an admirable example?

'Cause, see, that's the problem here.

OWS enthusiasts don't seem interested in doing the humble work of their own lives, let alone that of others. Their obsessions seem always to boil down to envy... An unremarkable weakness, one readily addressed by the better religions (and other intellectual enterprises).

And "appropriately skeptical" is an absolutely fa-BOO-lous locution... As if, we would agree, there are some fuckers out there who oughta just sign on to your program without thinking about it too much.

You're really quite fond of yourself, aren't you?

"verifiable sources"

> it got blocked by the spam filter.

So tragically con-VEEEEEEEEEEN-ient. If Amy weren't on the air, she'd be dealing with your nightmare difficulties right now. Hers is not a 1st Amendment service, but she loves to (ahem) let out enough rope. Maybe she'll clean out the spamtrap when she has a few spare hours, to show us the posts of yours we've been missing. She's always been just wonderful about doing that for me....

> 20% of working-age adults don't pay
> any income tax.

FAR too high on its face, and a desperate, integer-factor retreat from your earlier comment.

If you really, TRULY care about the poorest of the poor having a voice in our society, and a piece of the shared responsibilities we assign to government, TAX THEM. I promise, they'll take part in every discussion that follows. Their wisdom –and I deploy that word with the deepest sincerity– will finally be available to us once again.

But at the moment, we have no reason to trust you with their righteousness. Unless...

Tell us about your charities, Jim.

Crid,

Please, you first. Dazzle us with your resume of good works.

I would, Kitten, but you've assured us, in some wordless way, that your virtue surpasses our own. We all want very badly to believe you.

But maybe you got nuthin'. Again, you stand accused of envy: You've brought us, very aggressively and with tremendous sincerity, to this moment.

Show us your tits. Then, and ONLY then, I'll show you my awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping package. (Having a Jewish accountant helps me groom the thicket: See "tithe", above.) Because my argument is predicated on human nature, and not some unspoken claim to virtue, THIS is your moment to shine.

Hit me.

Crid,

Your antisemitic slip is showing.

Quite the reverse: I trust the oldest wisdom on Earth to describe my responsibilities to others.

Last chance:

Is there any reason for us to admire you at all?

Sorry, kiddo, you jumped the shark right into the land of creepy.

First rule of internet debate: don't feed the trolls.

Nuthin'... You got NUTHIN'.

All you want is command of other people's money.

Thanks for stoppin' by, but idiotic, COWARDLY liberals are a dime a dozen. We'll call you if we need you.

Amy, apparently Promiscuous Jim had some posts trapped by your spam filter, which doesn't choke entries until they're "submit"-ed. When you get a sec, you take a look at them for us?

Thanks oodles.

How 'bout it, Jimbo?

Ah...

And still, no links.

The main point is that, despite cries to the contrary, the wealthy are actually carrying the bulk of the tax burden in this country.

LS, "cries to the contrary" would mean that people -- from OWS folks to economists to Warren Buffett -- who believe we should raise taxes on the nation’s wealthiest individuals feel that the wealthy are not carrying the bulk of the tax burden in this country.

And I'm not so sure that's the case.

Most people may very well know that -- Buffet surely does; economists certainly do -- but feel that the wealthy should still pay more because they have the ability to pay more.

And even if the top 10% were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't solve our debt problems! We're fucked unless we stop spending.

Yes, we need to cut spending too. No disagreement there.

Tell us about your charities, Jim.

Heart Transplants for Libertarians is one of my favorites.

Heart!

That's two nuthin's.

They want us to believe they're more compassionate than we are... They just can't offer a single reason to believe it.

Their "hearts" pump only for other people's money.

Interesting take from the Post....

"Yes, we need to cut spending too. No disagreement there. "

So, why don't we start with cutting spending first?

Look at all the crap that the gov is spending money on, and cut out a huge honking chunk of it?

And then, after we've done that, then (and only then) maybe we can look at giving the gov more money.

If they're honest about their intentions, they have to prove that they'll use it responsibly before they can ask us for more.

It's almost like this entire thread is a parody at this point.

So after two-plus years of having mainstream, non-opinion news outlets highlight every bad actor they could find among hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers (and even make a few up); Amy, who on her own opinion-based site, points out a narcissist in a protest whose entire message is "give us stuff we haven't earned" is somehow out of bounds?

High comedy.

> It's almost like this entire thread is a
> parody at this point.

Point taken. But these contenders seemed authentic when they collapsed at the end. Like the Zuccotti park-shitters, they really believe themselves to be magically decent on the basis of zero evidence.

"Most people may very well know that -- Buffet surely does; economists certainly do -- but feel that the wealthy should still pay more because they have the ability to pay more."

Nothing is stopping Buffet from giving all his money to the government he wants. He doesn't speak for other people's values.

I don't know whose figures you're using above, Jim. I'll have to look at them. But, as I said, taxing the rich at 100% (because they can afford it) won't fix the problem. Maybe it'll make all the class resentful folks happier as the boat sinks, but the boat will still be sinking.

No country can unfairly penalize its top producers for being successful and expect that this doesn't, eventually, destroy productivity. We should HOPE the wealthy keep making money and spending it. Every yacht, jet, or luxury product needs widgets and widget makers employ people. Jealousy over the wealthy is an easily exploited sentiment, but it's wrongminded.

That's the case all over the country, Amy. I just had to spend $4000 I didn't have (and I could've used to hire more people or buy more products) to a consultant to deal with an overzealous inspector. They threatened to turn off my electricity (while I had guests in rooms)!

Just the fear and concern over what government might try to do next makes me want to pare down, keep a skeleton crew, because who knows what the next threat will be and what it may cost?

This is a huge part of the problem. Too much of the working population actually works for government (somebody knows the exact percentage, but I'm thinking it's around 25%?).

These people aren't producing anything. They're beaucracy. They go out and find the widget makers (or book authors), who are actually producing a product, and tax them, fine them, and/or put them out of business.

That's absurd, Amy. Those types of jobs attract power hungry jerks. The inspector who was harassing me knew full well there was a way to address the issues that wouldn't displace my tenants and inconvenience my guests, but he refused. He made me grovel and beg for more time, and I could tell he enjoyed it. At one point, I mistakenly used the word "harass", and he said, "Oh, if you think I'm harassing you, we have nothing to talk about." So, I had to backtrack, apologize, and kiss his ass in order to keep my business open.

And I'm just a small business owner. I can only imagine how much of a thrill a guy like that gets from harassing a bigger fish.

Ambitions

I have some questions on this data, Jim:

"In 2008, according to the preliminary numbers, 142 million Federal income tax returns were filed, 51 million of which had no income tax liability on them. That's about 36%. Lotsa deadbeats, huh?"

Does this figure include corporate federal tax returns? My corporations file tax returns, but they have no tax liability, because the income goes to me and my partner, then we file individual returns with a tax liability.

"But of the 91 million returns filed that did have tax liability, 63 million or so were married filing jointly. So those 91 million tax returns actually represent 174 million people, and doesn't include the children of those people, for the most part. That's about 53% of the population, which is where the infamous 47% number came from."

As you say, this math doesn’t add up. If 63 million are joint returns, then that would be 126 million + the 28 million individual filers = 154 million. Where does the 174 million come from?

"While many people over 65 have enough income to have income tax liability, they are a minority." I'd like to see the figures on that. Usually its people around that age who have accumulated the most wealth. Of course, the high earners are in the minority. That's the whole problem. The highest earners will ALWAYS be in the minority. They are the smallest group and therefore can't, alone, support the middle and lower levels.

I believe the middle class is actually the largest group - earning the most income as a group - yet, the middle class is the sacred cow of politicians.

Wow. 175 comments, basically indicating that Jim can't post a link. Geez, people, if you're going to argue wth Crid, you better have something to say. What is it with OWS people that rids them of reason? Toxoplasmosis?

I bet they own cats!

Wow. 175 comments, basically indicating that Jim can't post a link. Geez, people, if you're going to argue wth Crid, you better have something to say.

Better than "show me your tits"?

> Better than "show me your tits"?

A happily pointless speculation, but I'd bet that presentation would be insufficiently supported as well. I mean, "What Earthly use are you?" flew past without you even noticing.

With the matter at hand, though, it's never too late! You can describe some achievement, some personal experience of service to others, some remarkable and humble insight that we should take into account as you prattle away in childish envy of the wealthy.

"Better than "show me your tits"?"

"A happily pointless speculation, but I'd bet that presentation would be insufficiently supported as well." lol

Hey Crid,

Pretty amazing package .....er list of "accomplishments"....ya got there..... Interesting what one can uncover with an IP address and some well-written source code.

Oh, Marta, I highly doubt Crid does internet porn. Seriously, those of us who've been on this blog for awhile know better. If that's your implication, you'd better prove it.

Um, you're the one who brought up porn, not me. Dirty mind ya got there.

Well, I thought that's what you meant by "package". What are you saying then? Are you actually saying that you got Crid's IP address just from him posting here?

> Pretty amazing package

Personal threats! Given the spittle with which you arrived, it shouldn't surprise that this is about bitterness rather than principle.

PS- I worked a single session for a Playboy Channel producer in 1994. Their machines were a pain in the ass.