Sucker for Signs, cont.

This excessively awesome sign brought to you by courtesy of Matt Yglesias.

A Tale of Two Percentages

First, there was the 99%, a site dedicated to the people out there who are struggling with a myriad of problems and are asking/protesting simply for a deal that isn’t so rotten.

Then there was the 53%, created by Erick Erickson of Red State and CNN, signifying the lament of conservatives and the 53% of Americans who, cursed with the absolutely terrible luck of not being poor, fall into an income classification subject to the federal income tax.

And now comes the unbelievably sad yet still hilarious “No, you’re actually the 47%”, dedicated to refuting many of the self-proclaimed 53%’s claims that they are part of this elite group of taxpayers.

About the 53%, though… The thing most noticeable about the site isn’t necessarily the fact that many of the people posting misunderstood “people who pay federal income taxes” for “people who vote for conservative Republicans”, but rather how many bad cases of What’s The Matter With Kansas Syndrome there are on display. To summarize, the stories are primarily heartbreaking tales of hardship and illness and what-have-you that, for some reason, these people think they’ve overcome with nothing but hard work and perseverance. For example:

The person holding this sign has a father who works 72 hours a week of manual labor and is dying of thyroid cancer; she goes on to say that this is The American Dream.

Listen, I don’t know how bad things were in Croatia in 1971, and it’s a great thing that this family was able to come to America as immigrants and reap the benefits of a rich society and a well-maintained educational system, but working 72 hours of manual labor a week while dying of cancer is not The American Dream. That is sad and unfortunate. I’m not this man and I don’t know him, obviously, but I can say with a high level of confidence that most people who are dying would rather not go back to work. I’m perfectly alright with people like this man not working any longer and collecting assistance checks from the federal government.

Another:

Again, incredibly sad. This person lost the use of one of her arms and was unable to work until she learned a different trade, one that didn’t require two arms. But this is why we have a social safety net in the first place! So that when horrible things happen to people, they don’t lose one-hundred percent of their purchasing power. Why would this person ever want to vote for a candidate belonging to a party dedicated to dismantling the very welfare state that probably saved her life?

Another:

Her father is a public sector employee, her mother works at a nursing home in which there are probably many residents that are only able to afford being there because of Medicare, and she wants to be a public sector employee when she grows up. That doesn’t matter, though; people need to stop smokin’ dope and living off the dole.

There’s plenty more masochism and sadness on display in all the other entries. That aside, the tales of “the 53%” and “the 99%” are strikingly similar, with the only asymmetry being the endings of the letters; one side ends with “things suck, I’d enjoy some assistance” and the other ends with “things suck, but I’m fine with remaining miserable.” The point is: sure, life is hard and unfair, but it can be less hard and less unfair. All you have to do is stop voting against your best interests. Also, doing so doesn’t make you a weak or bad person, it makes you smart.

Sucker for Signs

Homerun! Some serious recruiting needs done, unfortunately.

Paul adds one caveat:

Small quibble: under current conditions, with a large debt overhang, the AD curve should be upward-sloping!

Thoughts on Occupy Wall St. and Awesome Protest Signs

Since the 17th of September, the Occupy Wall St. protests have been on a slow trot from just out of the frame, into the periphery, and finally into full focus of the public eye. Along with the increased publicity has come, naturally, a dose of condescension from the media regarding what exactly these “loony lefties’” complaints are and what they want out of these protests. I don’t want to get hung up on crucifying the media over the early handling of the protests since it’s irrelevant but I find the blatant contradiction on display humorous. Consider the rise of the Tea Party and how members of the press were literally attaching their own narratives to it in order to give the movement more salience, regardless of what all the tri-corner hats were actually saying.

I’m in agreement with a significant bloc of other liberals, as well as the protestors themselves, in not wishing for an exact and proper formulation of demands which must be complied with in order to declare success. Palpable pressure has been seldom applied from the left in any cogent manifestation as of recently, and so it’s worth preserving and nurturing; a succinct set of demands and policy prescriptions could possibly only serve to splinter the body into factions. That’s the consensus I’ve been hearing, at least. That could be a mistaken view, though, as it seems so far that there is little disagreement over the important part: whom will be subjected to their energy and wrath. That’s the most consequential fact, not determining exact policies to get behind. While I think it’s silly to compare these protests to Tahrir Square, those Egyptians weren’t in the street drafting up a future constitution; they were just demanding that the status quo be abolished. Moreover, as Paul Krugman puts it, it’s not exactly the responsibility of the protesters to know exactly what to propose. That’s kind of the point of representative democracy.

That aside, if it’s a simple demand people want, I’m more than happy to oblige. I think almost everyone involved in these protests will agree that, prima facie, policymakers have an obligation to promote full employment. Insofar as the root cause of this movement is utterly shameful policy responses to current economic conditions, not to discredit the rightly felt notion that incredible malfeasance on the part of our Galtian Overlords has gone unpunished, it’s a perfectly direct and poignant request to want someone to actually do something about the millions of un- and underemployed in this country. Of course, many people in positions of power have been trying to resolve this problem. Unfortunately, we’re privileged with a legislative system on par in institutional design with something you’d find in a third world country, so nothing gets done.

In terms of what can be done, under current circumstances, political and otherwise, I must say that this sign really hits the nail on the head. Addressing unemployment at this stage in the game basically comes down to further easing by the Fed, and as such, a lot of ire should be directed at the Fed. Actions undertaken by Ben Bernanke and the FOMC, and more so the European Central Bank, have been negligent at best and pernicious at worst toward any economic recovery. They continue to twiddle their thumbs as the rest of the world burns. So, if we’re grasping for something with some relatively quick and tangible results, I’d recommend protesters start hollering outside the regional Fed banks.

But I mean c’mon! Look at that sign! It can’t be said with a straight face that these people don’t have a clue when someone out there is holding this sign.

A lot of people are hoping this movement continues, and I’m definitely one of them. It may very well become impossible for political leaders to give anything less than a substantive response. The movement certainly has legitimacy. Many have already acknowledged it and have sided with the good guys. Others have castigated it. Things will most likely come to a boiling point eventually; let’s just hope that it isn’t the 99% getting burned this time, like always.

[Top photo by Ozier Muhammad for the NYT]