America's Two-Faced Liberals
President Barack Obama and Wall Street occupiers, along with their allies in the mainstream media and on college campuses, have maintained an ongoing attack on high-income earners, people they call 1 percenters. Listening to their deceitful demagoguery, you would naturally think of them as 99 percenters, but you'd be dead-wrong.
Last week, MSN Money posted a report titled "The richest counties in America." According to the report, residents of those 15 wealthiest counties "have median household incomes that are double the national average." Three of those counties have a median income of more than $100,000. The report goes on to say, "While many Americans struggle to find jobs, balance their budgets and get by with less, some folks are living high on the hog." Let's look at some of those counties.
Loudoun County, Va., has a median household income of $119,540, making it the nation's richest county. Virginia's Fairfax County is next, with a median household income of $103,010; the median price of a house is $507,800. Third is Howard County, Md., where the median household income is $101,771. These three richest counties have seven nearby high-income neighbors, which include Arlington and Montgomery counties. The nation's richest counties are close to Washington, D.C., where people come to do good and wind up doing well for themselves.
These 1 percenters are not wealthy right-wing Republicans; they are Obama's liberals. How can one tell? It turns out that seven of the 10 wealthiest counties in the Washington area voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. These liberals portray themselves as 99 percenters when they are really 1 percenters. They're simply running a deceitful rope-a-dope, aided by the mainstream media, on the American people.
During last year's Occupy movement, truly seedy-looking characters camped out on the streets and in the parks of several of our cities, causing millions of dollars of property damage. They committed robberies, thefts and sex crimes. Some of their lowlife acts, such as defecating and urinating in public and on police vehicles, were filmed. These people also portrayed themselves as 99 percenters. It turns out that they weren't that at all.
Will Rahn, deputy editor for The Daily Caller, wrote an article titled "NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury" (Nov. 2, 2011). Nearly 1,000 protesters were arrested in New York between Sept. 18 and Oct. 15. Police collected information on each arrestee's name, age, sex, criminal charge, home address and — in most cases — race. The median value of the homes of the arrestees was $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied homes of the rest of us. Ninety-five of the arrestees lived in homes valued at more than $500,000. Those who rented paid a median rent of $1,850 per month. Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. One Occupy Wall Street protester arrested — presumably, if you listen to the mainstream media, penniless and from a blue-collar family — lived in an $850,000 home in the nation's capital.
Recall that while on the campaign trail, Obama promised, "We will stand up in this election to bring about the change that won't just win an election but will transform America." Along with progressives, who formerly called themselves liberals, Obama wants to transform America into a European-like socialist nation. The Occupy protesters and their useful idiots in the media and on college campuses proudly display signs and banners revealing their preferences and affiliations, such as "Communist Party USA," "Democratic Socialists of America" and "Fight for Socialism." The American Nazi Party has issued an official endorsement of Occupy. The movement is also supported by White House leftist allies such as the Working Families Party, the Service Employees International Union — as well as most other labor unions — ACORN, the New Party and the Democratic National Committee.
During the forthcoming elections, we can be assured that these people will do all they can, including violent protests, to help Obama have an additional four years to continue his transformation of our nation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


|
 |
Comments
|
21 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Fact: President Barack Obama won the districts of 46 congressional Republicans on Election Day 2008.
My other comments,
What politically better way to stop or stall a movement than have endorsements by American Nazis or other fringe groups. I go back a long way and remember when in the 60's and 70's all the various movements were endorsed by fringe groups which cast a shadow on whatever we were trying to change at the time. Be it Civil Rights, Stop the War in Viet Nam, or the NOW.
Many of these 'fringe' groups it turned out were compelled to join, bought and paid for by our very own government. Many had criminal records expunged or received some sort of compensation to ally with political objectors. Many were paid or granted favor by the FBI/CIA to infiltrate and cast doubt on the worthiness of the movement.
As to the wealthy participating in the Occupy movement, why and how is that bad?
Even your Bill O'Reilly, another 1%, stated in his most recent column he agrees the 1% need to pay more taxes.
If a recently returned Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan vet can join the movement to stop the war, why can't those with money join the Occupy movement?
As to your statement:
"These 1 percenters are not wealthy right-wing Republicans; they are Obama's liberals. How can one tell? It turns out that seven of the 10 wealthiest counties in the Washington area voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008."
Fact: President Barack Obama won the districts of 46 congressional Republicans on Election Day 2008.
Let's examine the times and choices in 2008. In eight years, the Republican party got us into not one but two, wars. Neither of them paid for. Bush passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Law. The economy collapsed but the very wealthy Republican President and his wealthy Republican VP got their money out ahead of the collapse. John McCain chose Sarah Palin for VP who, compared to Hilary Clinton, came across as a dingbat who couldn't stand up to an interview by Katie Couric.
That left us with Clinton or Obama. Obama won the nomination and was voted into office by not only by wealthy Democrats and people of all races but also by many wealthy disillusioned Republicans.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Steve
Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:12 AM
|
|
|
|
One of Williams points is that rich people tend to vote democrat. Seems counterintuative, but its true because rich people know that democrats keep the status quo better than anyone else. Just look at California, the haven of liberal policies. And what happened? The wealth gap between the rich and the poor got bigger.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:17 AM
|
|
|
|
Glad somebody else noticed! The Democrats keep talking about "Republical fat cats", but they're fatter than anybody and much of it due to their political positions or connections. Too much money in government sticks to too many fingers in the process. And borrowing money to spend profligatly is .........
Comment: #3
Posted by: partsmom
Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Glad somebody else noticed! The Democrats keep talking about "Republical fat cats", but they're fatter than anybody and much of it due to their political positions or connections. Too much money in government sticks to too many fingers in the process. And borrowing money to spend profligatly is .........
Comment: #4
Posted by: partsmom
Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
My first comment said it all for me, but Mr. McCoy, I can't pass on your comment. So here, some facts and stats that say the opposite:
"Rich-Poor Income Gap Widest in Republican-Leaning States"...Money News 3/12/12
Examining average annual pre-tax income growth from 1948 to 2005, Political scientist Larry Bartels shows that under Democratic presidents (from Harry Truman forward), the greatest income gains have been at the bottom of the income scale and tapered off as income rose. Under Republican presidents, in contrast, gains were much less and what growth there was concentrated towards the top, tapering off as you went down the income scale. (rich getting richer, etc)
Journalist Timothy Noah summarized Bartels findings and referred to the administrations of Democratic presidents as "Democrat-world", and GOP administrations as "Republican-world":
In Democrat-world, pre-tax income increased 2.64% annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 2.12% annually for the upper-middle-class and rich. There was no Great Divergence. Instead, the Great Compression—the egalitarian income trend that prevailed through the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s—continued to the present, albeit with incomes converging less rapidly than before.
In Republican-world, pre-tax income increased 0.43% annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 1.90% for the upper-middle-class and rich. Not only did the Great Divergence occur; it was more greatly divergent.
In Democrat-world pre-tax income increased faster than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all richer and more equal!
But in Republican-world, pre-tax income increased slower than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all poorer and less equal!
Part of the growth of income inequality under Republican administrations (described by Larry Bartels) has been attributed to tax policy. A study by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez found that large reductions in tax progressivity since the 1960s took place primarily during two periods: the Reagan presidency in the 1980s and the Bush administration in the early 2000s.
During Republican President Ronald Reagan's tenure in office the top marginal income tax rate was reduced from over 70 to 28%, high top marginal rates like 70% being the sort in place during much of the period of great income equality following the "Great Compression". President Ronald Reagan's 1981 cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20% — its lowest level since the Hoover administration.
During the Republican George W. Bush administration, the tax rate on capital gains and qualifying dividends — a disproportionate source of income for top earners — fell to 15% — less than half the 35% top rate on ordinary income.
Economist Paul Krugman emphasizes the effect of changes in taxation — such as the 2001 and 2003 Bush administration tax cuts which cut taxes significantly for high-income households than for those below. Significantly increasing income inequality between rich and poor. President Bush's veto of tax harmonization has also been attributed to rising inequality, as this would have shut down offshore tax havens
Inequality increased during the 2000-2010 decade not because of stagnating wages for less-skilled workers, but because of accelerating incomes of the top 0.1%. Author Timothy Noah estimates that "trade", increases in imports are responsible for just 10% of the "Great Divergence" in income distribution. Globalization can explain part of the relative decline in blue-collar wages, but it can't explain the 2,500% rise in C.E.O. incomes.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Steve
Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Krugman is a wack job. The left version of Sean Hannity. Yeah, stats are great, but I see this in our culture. All the Hollywood types back Obama. So do most rich people I know. For every stat you have, there is another one proving the exact opposite.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:58 PM
|
|
|
|
"Afraid To Watch the News, Millions Turn to Fox" (Andy Borowitz)
I appreciate your last comment more than any others you've written because it leaves no doubt about you in my mind. Facts and stats are helpful for people who not only read but also comprehend something other than tv journalists. You talk a good game but game over.
Bloom Hilda told you a long time ago to keep watching FOX news. I second that suggestion.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Steve
Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:31 PM
|
|
|
|
And apparently you didn't read my response that I don't watch Fox news because they are comprimised. Any news network that bashes Ron Paul the way they do is no friend of mine. That is however the typical liberal response when someone says something about Obama they can't defend. Its either Fox news or calling them a racist. You 2 must have the updated copy of the Defend Obama handbook, the thing is Steve, you've already expressed disappointment with the little president. I don't think Bloom ever will no matter how much Obama continues to act like Bush.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Chris McCoy
Chris, I did say publicly, on one of these sites, a while ago, that I wasn't crazy about Obama, but I wouldn't be crazy about Lincoln, Washington, or Jefferson. I also liked the diplomacy Nixon showed with China, even though I hated Nixon. Nothing is black or white, there are huge shades of grey with all leaders. This country is made up of almost 400 million people, all with their different opinions, I am extremely conservative in a lot of areas, I am a flaming liberal in others. Nothing is global, there are variants in all opinions. By the way, I watch Fox all the time, I love O'Reilly, I think he's certifiable, but he's entertaining, funny, and cute.
Walter quoted:
Last week, MSN Money posted a report titled "The richest counties in America."
This has nothing to do with anything, if you want to survey the 1%, survey Goldman Sachs, Wall Street, Park Ave, Long Boat Key Fl., (the little 14 mile island that boasts the largest amount of retired Fortune 500 CEO's in the world). See how they vote?
The 1% represent Corporations, inherited wealth, and Wall Street,
"Conservative" Mantra, I've got mine, screw you
Comment: #9
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Chris,
I propose a wee test. Observe where Wall Street spends its money this election cycle. If your want to avoid the monied interests, just vote for the other guy. Yes, wall street will put money on both horses, and they certainly will not put anything behind Ron Paul, (Who would be the most likely to upset their apple carts) but notice who gets the biggest share and you will have the major candidate who is somewhat less good for the monied interests than the other. I wish the GOP was marginally sane. It would be nice to have a choice between two different, rational visions this time.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Mark
Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Bloom, sorry I must have missed that post. I'm glad to see that you don't think Obama dosen't actually walk on water. Trust me, I've met people who have. My sis in law is the biggest Obama shill on the planet and I'm constantly getting into it with her. Mark, you've got a deal. Lets see where the money goes. I have a feeling both Romney and Obama will be getting a lot of Wall St money.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Tue May 1, 2012 4:08 AM
|
|
|
|
Sir;... Might I suggest the obvious fact that medians, or averages contain highs and lows??? It is the super rich and many of the very poor rednecks who are not voting Democratic, and what these two groups have in common is their relationship of victor with victim... What really sets off many of the white democrats from white republicans is education which will almost always be reflected in income...What is obvious to many of these well educated democrats is that the self service society the rich use for their own benefit and paid for by less than rich is ultimately destructive of our nation and society...The fact that the constitution allows this abuse of the poor by the rich only means the constitution is unconstitutional...It has within it the seeds of its own destruction and the destruction of this people...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #12
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed May 2, 2012 7:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Chris McCoy;... Wall street whores like to walk both sides of the political street... They have too much money left from not supporting their country to interfere in politics... How about a new rule, that you can spend just as much on buying candidates as you spend in taxes, and no more...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #13
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Wed May 2, 2012 7:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Back in the '80s I was driving on the D.C. 495 Beltway when my car broke down. When the tow-truck driver told me how much the tow to a service station was going to cost, I was shocked. His explanation: "Sir, you have had the misfortune of breaking down in Fairfax County, Virginia, with the highest per-capita income in the United States." I don't begrudge government employees a fair income, but there is nothing fair about the stats cited by Prof. Williams.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Phillip Schearer
Wed May 2, 2012 12:40 PM
|
|
|
|
Hehe, Sweeny thats a pretty good idea.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu May 3, 2012 6:35 AM
|
|
|
|
The Democratic party was in the'30's & '40's , for the blue collar workers ( Unions ) If you were a common working man and wanted a good paying job, you needed Union membership. This meant you had to be a Democrat.This is how they included the Blacks. ( Even though Pres. Lincoln Freed them ) and they should have been Republicans. Not ALL of the Republican party was rich. Then a long came LBJ with his " Great Society. " That he said would insure the Black Vote for 200 years. It was designed to help increase the Economic wealth of black workers. 46 Years later and TRILLIONS of dollars spent, there has been no appreciable success. That is how the Democrats got membership of Rich ( Gotten in Gov. Ser. ) and poor members. They are still advertising themselves as the " Working Man, " but not entirely true.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Bobgood1
Thu May 3, 2012 7:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Bobgood1,
It reminds me of what a friend said about local private schools: They don't have to be good, only somewhat better than the public schools. The GOP has, in my opinion, set the bar pretty low for the Democratic party to lay claim to represent the "working man (and woman)". They don't really have to be that effective to be better than the Republicans.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Mark
Thu May 3, 2012 7:49 PM
|
|
|
|
This whole debate is moot as the latest so-called "rallies"by OWS prove that this joke of a movement is dead, with only the truly unshowered, entitled, lazy, elitist fools still clinging to whatever is left of an alleged movement that was better at getting press from the biased liberal media than recruiting true believers.
Comment: #18
Posted by: Thetruth
Sat May 5, 2012 8:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Walter E Williams article about one percenters
I thought The Democrats wanted to add additional tax to someone's income after they reach one million? The one % ers could not make their transportation cost on one or two hundred thousand dollars a year income. Let me explain something to people who lead a sheltered life or live and stay in their gated communities. There are a lot of homeless people in the U.S. It is a known fact that government entities have cut back funds, closed clinics, and hospitals for the mentally disabled. Basically taken away most of the safety nets for these people. Leaving a lot of mentally ill people on the streets or in prison.
When you leave your gated communities or your guarded buildings and go down town for a cultural event or sports or fundraisers check out some parks. It's not hard to spot someone living in the parks. Just don't get to close you might catch something.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Bart Shovein
Wed May 9, 2012 7:24 AM
|
|
|
|
Obviously Bart doesn't know what true poverty is as he is judging so-called American poverty with real poverty in other parts of the world. Even if we excuse his ignorance, why would the solution be implementing big government policies that failed all the world last century?
Comment: #20
Posted by: Thetruth
Sat May 12, 2012 10:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Obviously Bart doesn't know what true poverty is as he is judging so-called American poverty with real poverty in other parts of the world. Even if we excuse his ignorance, why would the solution be implementing big government policies that failed all the world last century?
Comment: #21
Posted by: Thetruth
Sat May 12, 2012 10:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Author’s Podcast
|